Fisher v. State
427 S.W.3d 743
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- William Fisher challenged the denial of his suppression motion tied to a DWI conditional plea in Garland County Circuit Court.
- Fisher was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on Highway 270 West; multiple officers and vehicles blocked the road at night.
- Trooper Heckel detected odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, and Fisher admitted drinking; Fisher blew into a roadside PBT device at the window.
- After the initial PBT, Fisher left the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests, including a second PBT, and was arrested for DWI.
- At the jail, Fisher signed a rights form regarding BrAC testing and provided two BrAC samples but declined an additional test at his own expense.
- The trial court denied suppression; Fisher appealed arguing the PBT seizure and BrAC testing violated Fourth Amendment and Arkansas Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PBT seizure at the checkpoint was valid without a warrant or consent. | Fisher argues the PBT seizure was unlawful and not consensual. | State contends there was reasonable suspicion and consent implied by the encounter at a roadblock. | PBT seizure permissible under reasonable suspicion and implied consent at a checkpoint. |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest Fisher absent the initial PBT results. | Fisher maintains suppression should follow from Fourth Amendment violation and lack of probable cause. | State asserts odor, admission, and visual signs created probable cause for arrest even without PBT. | There was probable cause to arrest based on odor, eyes, admission, and tests, independent of the initial PBT. |
| Whether the BrAC test results should be suppressed due to a deficient implied-consent form. | Fisher contends the form failed to state the three conditions of implied consent, rendering consent involuntary. | State argues ruling on evidentiary claim is not appealable under Rule 24.3 and the form suffices. | Rulings on the BrAC form are evidentiary, not suppressive, and cannot be appealed in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (Supreme Court, 2001) (compelled body intrusion for alcohol testing constitutes a search)
- Hilton v. State, 96 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2003) (smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, admission of drinking, and PBT refusal support probable cause)
- Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134 (2007) (deficient pretest forms; evidentiary, not suppression, claims)
- Scalco v. State, 42 Ark. App. 134 (1993) (evidentiary challenges to pretrial forms in DWI case)
- Ward v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 649 (Ark. App. 2012) (de novo review of suppression decisions; credibility given deference)
- Johnson v. State, 392 S.W.3d 897 (Ark. App. 2012) (reasonable suspicion standard under Rule 3.1)
- Frette v. City of Springdale, 959 S.W.2d 734 (Ark. 1998) (detention and investigation under Rule 3.1; stop viability)
- Jacobs v. State, 427 S.W.3d 83 (Ark. App. 2013) (discussion of roadblock seizures and totality-of-circumstances analysis)