May v. State
2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 634
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jimmy Dewayne May was arrested in a Fort Smith parking lot after store employees reported two people acting strangely inside a sporting-goods store; officers located a black pickup with Louisiana plates and contacted the occupants.
- Officer Taylor, in uniform and in a marked car, approached to identify the occupants and to investigate the reported odd behavior; he noted nervousness and sweating; he checked names and discovered active warrants for both occupants.
- May was arrested on the discovered warrant; after arrest, he consented to a search of his truck, and officers found a glass pipe, a scale, syringes, and a suspected bag of methamphetamine and magazines for a .38 Ruger.
- May was tried and convicted of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms totaling thirty years.
- May moved to suppress the truck evidence, arguing the initial contact/stop violated Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2 and 3.1 and constitutional protections because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.
- The circuit court denied suppression, finding that even assuming the initial detention was improper, discovery of an active arrest warrant was an independent intervening factor that removed any taint; the Court of Appeals affirmed because May did not challenge that independent basis on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (May) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of initial contact/stop | Officer lacked specific, particularized, articulable facts to justify stop or even contact under Rules 2.2/3.1 and constitutional protections | Initial contact was lawful under Rule 2.2 to investigate suspicious behavior reported by store; officer then verified warrants | Court did not resolve merits of initial-stop claim because alternate ground disposed: warrant discovery broke causal chain |
| Admissibility of evidence after arrest | Evidence seized flowed from unlawful stop and should be suppressed | Discovery of active arrest warrant was an independent, intervening event; May’s consent to search occurred after lawful arrest, purging any taint | Held admissible: circuit court’s independent basis (warrant/intervening factor) was not challenged on appeal, so affirmation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pugh v. State, 351 Ark. 5 (court will not reverse when appellant fails to attack circuit court’s independent alternative basis for its ruling)