Lewis v. State
2017 Ark. 211
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Victim Beverly Carter, a real-estate agent, disappeared after meeting a prospective buyer; her body was later found; cause of death: asphyxia from duct-tape mask.
- Aaron (Arron) Lewis and his wife Crystal Lowery devised a ransom/kidnapping scheme; Lowery’s TextMe account tied to communications with the victim.
- Lieutenant Swaggerty observed Lewis after a car crash, asked questions under a Rule 2.2 encounter, obtained Lewis’s phone number and seized his cell phone; vehicle was towed and inventoried; later warrants executed on the trunk.
- Lewis gave two custodial statements; the circuit court suppressed the first statement (invocation of counsel), admitted the second (after reinitiation), admitted the cell phone and some inventory evidence, and suppressed other items as overbroad.
- Lewis moved to suppress: (1) custodial statements, (2) vehicle evidence, (3) evidence obtained via prosecutor subpoenas, (4) a victim voice recording on Lewis’s phone. He was convicted of capital murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life without parole and life. The State cross-appealed suppression of certain evidence; the cross-appeal was dismissed as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of seizure of cell phone after crash | Seizure was product of illegal encounter; phone should be suppressed under Rule 2.2 | Swaggerty’s approach was a permissible Rule 2.2 nonseizure encounter; phone seizure valid under Rule 10.2 | Affirmed: encounter proper under Rule 2.2 and phone seizure permissible under Rule 10.2 |
| Admissibility of victim’s voice recording played from Lewis’s phone | Recording should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal interrogation and under Arkansas constitutional self-incrimination/right-to-counsel protections | Recording is non-testimonial physical evidence; Patane permits admission of physical evidence derived from voluntary unwarned statements | Denied suppression: recording admissible (court relied on Patane and Arkansas–federal parity) |
| Challenge to prosecutor subpoenas to third parties (AT&T/Google/TextMe) | Subpoenas were used to aid police investigation and should be suppressed | Lewis lacks standing to challenge subpoenas issued to third parties; prosecutor acted within investigatory role | Denied: Lewis lacked standing to challenge subpoenas (no expectation of privacy in third‑party records) |
| Admissibility of second custodial statement (after invocation) | Statement was involuntary, produced by false promises/leniency and should be suppressed | Lewis reinitiated communication; Miranda/Edwards rules were observed when interrogation resumed | Not reached on merits (promise-of-leniency argument not preserved); court held reinitiation occurred and admitted post-reinitiation statements until invocation |
| Validity of vehicle inventory search | Impoundment and inventory were pretextual to obtain evidence and thus invalid | Vehicle wrecked and driver incapacitated; policy required impoundment and inventory for safekeeping | Affirmed: impoundment and inventory lawful and conducted per standard procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence derived from voluntary unwarned statements)
- State v. McFadden, 327 Ark. 16 (1997) (blue lights pursuit and stop converted encounter into a seizure beyond Rule 2.2)
- Thompson v. State, 303 Ark. 407 (1990) (distinguishing consensual Rule 2.2 encounters from seizures and describing Rule 3.1 stop/suspicion standard)
- State v. Hamzy, 288 Ark. 561 (1986) (prosecutor subpoena power limited to prosecutorial investigation; third‑party records implicate standing issues)
- Stone v. State, 321 Ark. 46 (1995) (volunteered/spontaneous statements are admissible and not barred by Miranda)