462 S.W.3d 352
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Sept. 6, 2012, First Security Bank in Benton was robbed by a masked man; witnesses reported a white Hyundai Sonata, camouflage shirt, jeans with a white object in the rear pocket, brown shoes, and a black mask.
- On Sept. 8, 2012, officers stopped a white Hyundai after an AT&T store report; driver Terry Echols consented to a search and police found clothing, a mask, and bait money linked to the bank robbery.
- Terry identified that Bruce Echols regularly drove the car; officers developed Bruce as a suspect and learned an outstanding misdemeanor warrant (failure to appear on terroristic-threatening charge) existed for Bruce dated Aug. 20, 2012.
- Officer Bigelow arrested Bruce at his shared mobile home on the misdemeanor warrant later that day; Bruce was taken to the station, waived Miranda, initially denied involvement, then confessed and led officers to a discarded fake-gun prop.
- While Bruce was being interrogated, officers obtained a search warrant for the shared mobile home based on an affidavit summarizing the investigation (including Bruce’s statement that he took ~$100 from Terry); the search yielded a bank bag and $8,114 in Bruce’s bedroom.
- Bruce moved to suppress, arguing the arrest was pretextual and illegal (thus tainting his confession, the fake gun, and the items seized under the warrant); the trial court denied suppression, he was convicted on four counts of aggravated robbery, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Echols' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest was pretextual | Arrest solely to question him about robbery; therefore unlawful | Arrest was pursuant to a valid outstanding misdemeanor warrant; officers would have arrested him anyway | Arrest was not pretextual; trial court’s finding upheld |
| Whether probable cause was required / existed for robbery arrest | Police lacked probable cause for robbery arrest; arrest therefore illegal | No need—arrest was lawful on the misdemeanor warrant | No probable-cause inquiry for robbery necessary because misdemeanor-warrant arrest was valid |
| Admissibility of custodial confession and fake gun (fruit of arrest) | Statements and gun derived from illegal arrest and must be suppressed | Arrest lawful; fruit is admissible | Confession and fake gun admissible because arrest lawful |
| Validity/scope of search warrant for whole mobile home (including Bruce’s room) | Warrant relied in part on statements allegedly obtained via illegal arrest; evidence in Bruce’s room should be excluded | Warrant supported by independent probable cause (items in car, bait money, Bruce’s statements after lawful arrest); likely evidence in shared home | Warrant supported by probable cause to search the shared home and bedrooms; seizure upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 348 Ark. 647 (Ark. 2002) (pretextual-arrest doctrine: apply a "but-for" test to determine whether an ulterior motive invalidates an arrest)
- Hines v. State, 289 Ark. 50 (Ark. 1986) (arrest with dual motives is valid if it would have been made absent the covert motive)
- Stephens v. State, 342 Ark. 151 (Ark. 2000) (no pretextual arrest where officers approached with outstanding warrant)
- Criddle v. State, 338 Ark. 744 (Ark. 1999) (if the initial arrest is lawful, evidence discovered as its fruit is admissible)
- Romes v. State, 356 Ark. 26 (Ark. 2004) (probable-cause requirement for arrest for greater offense depends on whether arrest was pretextual)
- Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424 (Ark. 2004) (affidavit must show probable cause that evidence sought will be found in place to be searched)