Winebrenner v. State

OPINION

BAKER, Judge.

Appellant-defendant Anthony Winebren-ner brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He contends that the police did not have probable cause *1039to arrest him for violation of a protective order, and therefore the police had no right to search his person incident to the arrest. Concluding that the police officer did have probable cause to arrest Wine-brenner for invasion of privacy, we affirm and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTS

On December 12, 2001, a protective order was issued…