scared” and “[s]ome of those questions were too hard.” J.A. at 108-25 (Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 299-816). Spies listened to the recording of Vaughn’s interrogation of Harris as soon as she arrived at the police station and before she ordered Harris’s arrest. J.A. at 559-60 (Urban Dep. at 586-40). Accordingly, she should have known that Harris’s confession was suspect and inherently untrustworthy because it was- extracted from a twelve-year-old child with no previous law-enforcement experience, outside the presence of his mother, through the use of intensive interrogation techniques. Thus, the district court erred in concluding that the confession provided support for Spies’s finding of probable cause for the arrest. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964) (<HOLDING>). After the elimination of Harris’s confession
holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that a probable cause determination should consider the facts and circumstances known to the officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant holding that whether an arrest is supported by probable cause turns upon whether at the moment of the arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting officials knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense emphasis added holding that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense in situations where the arresting officer has not observed the operation of the vehicle such facts and circumstances would necessarily have to include a relationship between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operation of the vehicle internal citations omitted