Freeman v. State
2012 Ark. App. 144
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Freeman pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver after a suppression motion denial.
- Officer Goodman stopped Freeman on I-40 near Russellville for swerving onto the shoulder at about 1:40 a.m.
- A dash-cam video shows Freeman interacting amiably, providing licenses and paperwork; audio was unavailable due to a dead mic.
- Freeman consented to a search of the trailer and cab; concealment evidence was later found in a hidden compartment with 32+ pounds of marijuana.
- The trial court ruled that consent was voluntary and that the stop was lawful; Freeman appealed alleging invalid consent and unlawful detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was consent to search validly given? | Freeman contends consent was not freely given. | State argues consent was voluntary and uncoerced. | Consent found voluntary; no clear error by trial court. |
| Was Freeman illegally detained beyond the original traffic-stop purpose? | Freeman contends detention exceeded permissible scope. | State asserts permissible routine tasks during a valid stop allowed follow-up questions and searches. | Detention upheld as permissible during routine stop activities; no improper continuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinojosa v. State, 2009 Ark. 301 (Ark. Sup. Ct.) (establishes preservation and stop/detention principles)
- Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2004) (valid stop allows questions about destination and purpose)
- Turner v. State, 94 Ark.App. 259 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (searches require consent but may follow from a valid stop)
- Welch v. State, 364 Ark. 324 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2005) (consent to search of a vehicle need not advise of right to refuse)
- Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2007) (consent timelines within traffic-stop framework)