36
rested. The officer was acting lawfully in pursuing Toy in order that the arrest would not be frustrated.[1]
C. Probable Cause for The Arrest of Petitioner Wong Sun was Furnished by The Combined, Consistent Statements of Yee and Petitioner Toy
1. Petitioners suggest (Pet. Supp. Br. 14) that the arrest of Wong Sun was unlawful because the officers relied upon narcotics obtained from and statements made by Yee at the time of Yee's arrest, claiming that the arrest of Yee was itself unlawful. The point has no merit.
No question was raised at the trial as to the lawfulness of the arrest of Yee per se and it is too late to raise one now. Nor is there any question as to the way in which the officers obtained the narcotics from Yee. Petitioners' suggestion that the agent's testimony that Yee "surrendered" the narcotics is "conclusionary" (Supp. Br. 14) is refuted by the record. On cross-examination, Agent Nickoloff was asked, "And you made a search of his premises, Johnny Yee's home or premises?". The officer replied, "No, I didn't actually make a search. He surrendered the nar-
- ↑ Toy testified that the officer pursuing him into the rear of the laundry ran across the bed in which Toy's wife and child were sleeping. Presumably this was intended to suggest misconduct in the manner of making the arrest, although the point was not articulated in argument. The officer testified that Toy had himself run across the bed to a nightstand into which he reached, and the officer, fearing a gun in the drawer, followed, drew his own gun, and handcuffed Toy. Petitioners offered the testimony of Toy's wife only "as to the condition of the door before and after the entry" (R. 48), and attempted no further development of the suggested misconduct beyond this tangential reflection on the officers.
