493 S.W.3d 789
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- On June 4, 2014, deputies executed a search warrant at a residence on a county road; Deputy Sam Shepard positioned near the driveway encountered a vehicle that stopped in front of the residence.
- Shepard recognized the driver as Carroll Medlock and knew Medlock’s license was suspended; he told Medlock to pull over and exit the vehicle and had him placed under arrest for driving on a suspended license and fictitious tags.
- Because the vehicle was to be towed, Shepard began an inventory search and found a cigarette pack containing a small cellophane package of methamphetamine, a separate tin with 7.0245 grams of methamphetamine, a glass pipe with residue, a small spoon, and a torch. Medlock had about $501 on his person.
- Medlock moved to suppress the stop and vehicle search (arguing violations of Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 and 2.2 and that the inventory search was pretextual); the circuit court denied suppression after a hearing.
- At trial the State presented lab confirmation of methamphetamine and testimony about the items and cash; Medlock presented alibi/ownership testimony that he had not driven the car for weeks and had recently repossessed it.
- A jury convicted Medlock of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia; he received an aggregate eighty-year sentence and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Medlock's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine | State failed to prove actual or constructive possession or intent to deliver; Medlock lacked knowledge and control | Medlock was sole occupant; contraband and paraphernalia were within immediate reach; separate packages, spoon, and large cash support intent to deliver | Conviction affirmed — substantial evidence supports constructive possession and intent to deliver |
| Motion to suppress — legality of stop and vehicle search under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 and 2.2; validity of inventory search | Stop was consensual or investigatory under Rule 2.2 only; no reasonable suspicion under Rule 3.1; inventory search was a pretext and policy noncompliance vitiates good faith | Shepard lawfully stopped/detained Medlock after recognizing him and knowing of a suspended license (investigation of a particular crime); inventory search was proper under department policy and discovery of meth gave probable cause to continue search | Denial of suppression affirmed — initial encounter lawful under Rule 2.2; arrest and inventory search produced probable cause for continued search |
Key Cases Cited
- Tubbs v. State, 370 Ark. 47 (2007) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict/sufficiency challenges)
- Dodson v. State, 341 Ark. 41 (2000) (constructive possession doctrine)
- Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 (1998) (dominion and control as elements of constructive possession)
- Embry v. State, 302 Ark. 608 (1990) (additional factors linking accused to contraband for constructive possession)
- Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378 (1991) (knowledge and control can be inferred from circumstances)
- Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66 (1988) (proximity, plain view, and ownership as indicia of constructive possession)
- Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406 (2003) (de novo review of suppression denials; totality of circumstances)
- Montgomery v. State, 367 Ark. 485 (2006) (deference to trial court credibility findings at suppression hearings)
- Thompson v. State, 303 Ark. 407 (1990) (when consensual encounters become seizures under show of authority)