Dye v. State
2018 Ark. App. 545
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Police on extra patrol responded to reports of trespassing on private gas-well property around midnight and found two vehicles parked side-by-side; Dye was in one truck with Watkins.
- Officers observed a black pouch with plastic baggies in plain view between the truck’s front seats; Watkins fled shortly after officers arrived.
- Officer Jones detained Dye while searching for Watkins, asked to search Dye’s residence, and Dye gave verbal and written consent and provided a key.
- In Dye’s bedroom officers found a shotgun in the closet and, in plain view near the headboard, a spoon with methamphetamine and straws with residue.
- Dye was charged and convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress the evidence and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Dye of possession | Dye: no link between him and contraband; truck items concealed and residence occupancy not clearly established | State: charges based on residence contraband; Dye occupied the house and consented to search | Convictions upheld — constructive possession inferred from location (his house/bedroom), consent, and items in plain view |
| Lawfulness of initial police encounter (Rule 2.2) | Dye: encounter not authorized because officers weren’t investigating a crime | State: officers were investigating trespassing on private property (extra patrol) | Encounter lawful under Rule 2.2 because officers investigated potential trespass on private property |
| Whether consensual encounter became a seizure requiring Rule 3.1 reasonable suspicion | Dye: detention exceeded consensual encounter and lacked reasonable suspicion and exceeded permitted duration | State: encounter remained consensual or reasonable under circumstances | Court: encounter became a seizure; but officers had reasonable suspicion (multiple factors) and ~20-minute detention was reasonable under the circumstances |
| Validity of consent to search and need for Miranda warnings | Dye: consent involuntary (under influence) and obtained without Miranda; statements should be suppressed | State: written consent form advised right to refuse; statements spontaneous; no Miranda required for consent or spontaneous remarks | Consent was voluntary (proved by officer testimony and written waiver); no Miranda required for consent or spontaneous statement; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 815 S.W.2d 382 (possession can be inferred from proximity, plain view, and ownership of premises)
- Thompson v. State, 303 Ark. 407, 797 S.W.2d 450 (distinguishing consensual encounter and seizure; Rule 3.1 stop standards)
- Scott v. State, 347 Ark. 767, 67 S.W.3d 567 (consensual encounter becomes seizure if reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Pickering v. State, 2012 Ark. 280, 412 S.W.3d 143 (standard of review on suppression — de novo with deference to trial court factual findings)
- Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. 211, 521 S.W.3d 466 (three encounter categories and analysis of seizure transformation)
- Hammons v. State, 327 Ark. 520, 940 S.W.2d 424 (Rule 2.2 requires investigation or prevention of a particular crime)
- Laime v. State, 347 Ark. 142, 60 S.W.3d 464 (list in statute is illustrative, not exhaustive, for reasonable-suspicion factors)
- Menne v. State, 2012 Ark. 37, 386 S.W.3d 451 (totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion)
- Omar v. State, 99 Ark. App. 436, 262 S.W.3d 195 (detention durations may exceed 15 minutes if reasonable)
- Jennings v. State, 69 Ark. App. 50, 10 S.W.3d 105 (distinguishing lawful investigatory encounters from unjustified stops)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda not required for spontaneous voluntary statements)