Casey v. State
2016 Ark. App. 98
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 12, 2014, dispatch received a 911 call from Shannon Hadley reporting that Jonathan Scott Casey was banging on Hadley’s front door at about 2:00 a.m., had been drinking, and had (earlier) a firearm; Hadley identified himself and gave his address.
- Dispatch relayed to officers that a male in a tan Chevrolet pickup at 9 Finger Circle had been drinking and may have a gun; an ‘‘intoxication’’ code was also transmitted.
- Officers located a tan truck near the residence, activated lights, contacted Casey in the truck, and observed him place a mint in his mouth; Casey exited the vehicle on request.
- A pat-down revealed a knife; officers observed an alcohol bottle in the truck; Casey admitted drinking, failed two field-sobriety tests, and recorded .15 on a PBT and .13 on the station BAC test.
- Casey was arrested for DWI, moved to suppress evidence claiming the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the circuit court denied the motion, and Casey was convicted; he appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop/detain Casey under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 | Casey: stop was based on insufficient information akin to an anonymous, general tip (citing Van Patten) and thus lacked particularized suspicion | State: caller identified himself, gave address and detailed, contemporaneous facts (banging on door, drinking, had/had had a gun, vehicle description), providing specific, articulable reasons to suspect criminal activity | Court: affirmed—officers had reasonable suspicion; the tip was not anonymous and provided particularized facts supporting a lawful stop |
| Whether transmission of an "intoxication" code (vs. caller saying "drinking") rendered the stop based on false information | Casey: dispatcher’s code inflated caller’s statement and misled officers | State: distinction between "drinking" and "intoxication" was not a material falsity; no invalidation of reasonable suspicion | Court: rejected Casey’s claim; minor code distinction did not negate reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. State, 390 S.W.3d 95 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings; reasonable-suspicion analysis under totality of the circumstances)
- Van Patten v. State, 697 S.W.2d 919 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985) (anonymous, general radio dispatch insufficient to support investigatory stop)
- United States v. Anvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable suspicion need not rule out innocent conduct; totality-of-circumstances and particularized suspicion principles)