MacKintrush v. State
479 S.W.3d 14
Ark.2016Background
- On March 19, 2014, MacKintrush picked up a USPS package addressed to "Darius Riggs"; postal inspector Schuetzle had been investigating the package because it emitted a strong dryer-sheet odor (a possible masking agent).
- Schuetzle checked addresses via CLEAR and found sender/recipient names not matching the listed addresses and notified N. Little Rock narcotics investigator Brooks; plan: turn the package over and follow the recipient.
- After signing for the package as the named recipient, MacKintrush left in his vehicle and was stopped for failure to signal; he refused consent to search the vehicle.
- Officers waited approximately 34 minutes for a canine unit; during the wait the dog arrived and alerted, producing a search that uncovered marijuana, paraphernalia, and hydrocodone; MacKintrush was arrested, convicted and sentenced to 144 months.
- At the suppression hearing MacKintrush argued the continued detention for the canine sniff exceeded the traffic-stop purpose and lacked reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, Ark. Const. art. 2 § 15, and Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1; the circuit court denied suppression and convictions followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MacKintrush) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continued detention to await a canine sniff violated the Fourth Amendment/Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 because there was no reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop | The routine traffic-stop tasks were completed; the additional 34-minute detention for a dog sniff required reasonable suspicion but the facts (dryer-sheet odor, mismatched names/addresses, signing for recipient) are wholly innocent and only amount to bare suspicion | Officers had articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion: dryer-sheet odor (a masking agent), package/address irregularities, prior interception to that location, signing as the addressee, and defendant’s nervousness; delay was not unreasonable | Court reversed: continued detention lacked reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances; suppression required, convictions and sentence reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- McMiller v. State, 444 S.W.3d 363 (Ark. 2014) (general review of evidence/sufficiency context)
- Cockrell v. State, 370 S.W.3d 197 (Ark. 2010) (standard for de novo review of suppression rulings; give weight to circuit-court fact findings)
- Lilley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 785 (Ark. 2005) (air-freshener/masking-agent odor alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Malone v. State, 217 S.W.3d 810 (Ark. 2005) (reasonable suspicion for further detention must arise before the traffic-stop’s legitimate purpose ends)
- Laime v. State, 60 S.W.3d 464 (Ark. 2001) (Rule 3.1 requires reasonable suspicion of felony or misdemeanor involving danger of forcible injury or appropriation/damage to property)
- Dowby v. State, 210 S.W.3d 850 (Ark. 2005) (reasonable-suspicion analysis uses totality of circumstances and particularized articulable facts)
- Sims v. State, 157 S.W.3d 530 (Ark. 2004) (reasonable suspicion necessary to justify further detention must exist prior to completion of the stop)
- Harris v. State, 277 S.W.3d 568 (Ark. 2008) (listing factors relevant to evaluating reasonable suspicion)