say that at the instant of the officer’s noticing stains on Henry’s clothes, a constructive arrest automatically took place — without any other action by the State — would be to condone investigatory arrests and to allow an after-the-fact assertion by the State to bootstrap illegally obtained evidence on appeal. ¶ 11. For these reasons, we hold that Campbell was unlawfully arrested and that at no time was this failing corrected by a new or second arrest. Hence, the admission of both Campbell’s statement and the evidence of blood on his clothing were obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest and should have been suppressed. See Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 896 (Miss.1989), reversed in part on other grounds sub. nom, Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Penick v. State, 440 So.2d 547, 558
recognizing that police officers may use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest holding that pursuant to a lawful arrest law enforcement officials may seize personal effects and clothing from one who has been arrested holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the search holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest