Foster v. State
2015 Ark. App. 412
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Foster was stopped after dispatch reported a frantic caller saying a man was "trying to kick in my door" and leaving in a white pickup; dispatch also (incorrectly) reported an active order of protection against him.
- Detective Harbour observed a vehicle matching the description, detained Foster under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1, smelled marijuana, and received a marijuana joint from Foster after asking to search the vehicle.
- A ziplock in the console (same console as the marijuana) contained a partial pill; forensic testing identified 0.0824 grams of morphine; marijuana quantity was 0.7149 grams.
- Foster waived a jury, moved to suppress evidence and later moved for directed verdict/dismissal at bench trial on Rule 3.1, Fourth Amendment, and sufficiency (usable amount/knowledge) grounds; motions were denied and the court convicted him on both counts.
- Sentence: concurrent 48 months’ probation on each count, $1,000 fine, costs and fees; appeal challenges denial of suppression and directed verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Foster) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of stop under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 / Fourth Amendment | Stop was supported by reasonable, particularized suspicion based on frantic 911 report of possible forcible entry, vehicle description, and defendant leaving scene | Officer should have investigated further (e.g., contacted alleged victim) because dispatch described non-physical banging; order of protection had been dismissed before the stop | Stop was reasonable under totality of circumstances; motion to suppress denied |
| Admissibility of evidence seized after stop (search/consent) | Marijuana was voluntarily handed over; consent/probable cause supported search of console where drugs were found | Initial detention violated Rule 3.1, so subsequent search/seizure should be suppressed | Trial court’s denial of suppression affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence — knowledge and possession of morphine (usable amount) | Constructive possession established: Foster was sole occupant, controlled vehicle, handed officer items from console; lab confirmed morphine and measurable weight | No proof Foster knew pill was morphine; lab sample expiration date not shown; pill quantity might not be a "usable" amount | Evidence was substantial: constructive possession and usability satisfied (0.0824 g, visible/tangible); directed-verdict/dismissal denied |
| Application of possession-of-contraband mens rea in single-occupancy vehicle | State not required to prove defendant knew substance was contraband when sole occupant; only required in joint-occupancy cases | Argues knowledge requirement applies; contests chain-of-custody/validity of lab sample | Court affirmed that knowledge-as-to-contraband is unnecessary here; lab testimony adequate; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweet v. State, 2011 Ark. 20, 370 S.W.3d 510 (discussing preservation and order of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Thornton v. State, 2014 Ark. 157, 433 S.W.3d 216 (bench-trial dismissal and sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Polk v. State, 348 Ark. 446, 73 S.W.3d 609 (constructive possession standards)
- Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293, 367 S.W.3d 544 (knowledge-of-contraband requirement applies in joint-occupancy cases)
- James v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 118, 390 S.W.3d 95 (standard of review for motions to suppress and reasonable suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (establishing that reasonable suspicion need not rule out innocent conduct)
- Sinks v. State, 44 Ark. App. 1, 864 S.W.2d 879 (usable-amount standard: visible, tangible, and capable of quantitative analysis)