Menne v. State
379 S.W.3d 86
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Menne was stopped for speeding by Arkansas State Trooper Roark; documentation was requested and verified.
- Roark decided to issue a warning and asked Menne to step outside to discuss the search; consent to search was sought approximately fourteen minutes into the stop.
- Search of Menne’s vehicle revealed drug paraphernalia and marijuana; methamphetamine was found in her purse.
- Menne moved to suppress the evidence as illegally seized after an allegedly unlawful detention beyond the traffic-stop purpose.
- The trial court denied suppression; Menne was convicted on possession of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and methamphetamine.
- The appellate court held the detention exceeded the stop’s legitimate purpose and any consent was invalid, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the detention legal after the stop’s purpose ended? | Menne argues the stop ended at nine-and-a-half minutes and she was illegally detained afterwards. | Menne's counsel contends Roark could not detain absent suspicion to obtain consent. | Detention beyond stop’s end was illegal; suppression affirmed. |
| Was consent to search valid given unlawful detention? | Any consent was invalid due to illegal detention after the stop ended. | Consent could be voluntary irrespective of detention length. | Consent invalid; search unlawful. |
| Did Roark have reasonable suspicion to extend beyond the stop? | Totality of circumstances supported continued detention beyond 9.5 minutes. | Nervous demeanor and prior information justified prolonged detention under Rule 3.1. | No reasonable suspicion supported extending the stop; 3.1 violated. |
| Did Rule 3.1 govern the permissible duration of detention here? | Rule 3.1 limits detention to the completion of the stop absent suspicion; delay was improper. | Rule 3.1 allows up to 15 minutes if suspicion exists; here the stop had completed. | Rule 3.1 satisfied only for lawful detention; here the stop was complete and the detention was unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507 (2004) (detention after stop for drug dog arrival violates Rule 3.1)
- Ayala v. State, 90 Ark. App. 13 (2005) (absent suspicion, return paperwork and discontinue detention)
- Laime v. State, 347 Ark. 142 (2001) (mere nervousness does not, by itself, give reasonable suspicion)
- Stewart v. State, 332 Ark. 138 (1998) (high-crime area tense but not enough for stop)
- Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 (2007) (difficulty in determining stop completion depends on facts)