Moss v. State
380 S.W.3d 479
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Moss challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress fruits of a search of Moss's home following a warrant obtained via Detective Marx's affidavit.
- An informant tipped Moss was selling drugs from the residence; surveillance observed a Texas-registered car linked to Moss’s home and identified driver Laquita Thomas.
- Thomas, stopped and searched with consent, implicated Moss and disclosed marijuana use with him at Moss’s home; she later gave a recorded statement corroborating marijuana activity there.
- Marx drafted an affidavit seeking a warrant for Moss’s residence describing Thomas’s statements and that Moss had additional marijuana at the residence; a warrant issued and search conducted.
- Moss moved to suppress; the trial court denied, finding no bad faith and that the statements supported probable cause; Moss pled guilty conditionally and appealed.
- On appeal, the court applied Franks v. Delaware framework to assess false/misleading statements and conducted a de novo review of the totality of the circumstances, upholding the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franks issue—false/misleading statements | Moss contends Marx knowingly or recklessly misstated facts to support the warrant. | Moss argues these misstatements invalidated probable cause under Franks. | No Franks violation; statements not false/misleading or not material. |
| Timeliness and specificity under Collins | Collins requires precise timing of criminal activity to support probable cause; lack of time reference renders affidavit defective. | Affidavit provided May 14, 2009 with specific times; sufficient to show timing of activity. | Affidavit timely and specific; Collins distinguished; sufficient to show timing. |
| Probable cause for items at Moss's home | Thomas’s statements created reasonable cause to believe drug paraphernalia and marijuana present at Moss's residence. | Argues insufficient linkage to Moss's residence without more direct evidence. | Totality supports probable cause for the seized items at Moss's home. |
| Rule 13.3(c) service issue preservation | Wife received no copy; service is error-specific but relevant to prejudice. | Lack of ruling and lack of prejudice objections to service on wife collapse review. | Issue not reviewable due to lack of lower-court ruling and prejudice concession. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rufus, 338 Ark. 305 (1999) (Franks-based false information requires showing material misstatement and remaining probable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for challenging a warrant based on false statements)
- Collins v. State, 280 Ark. 453 (1983) (timing of informant observations essential to probable cause)
- Yancey v. State, 345 Ark. 108 (2001) (probable cause based on affidavits described with reasonable cause)
- Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583 (1996) (cited for rule on affidavit sufficiency and probable cause)
- King v. State, 314 Ark. 205 (1993) (reluctant to find minor inaccuracies per totality of circumstances)
- Porter v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 657 (2010) (deference to trial court on credibility and weighing evidence)
- Miller v. State, 81 Ark.App. 401 (2003) (standard for reviewing suppressions appeals)