Nance v. State
433 S.W.3d 872
Ark.2014Background
- Anonymous complaints prompted Pulaski County Humane Society (PCHS) and a veterinarian to visit Sandra Nance’s kennel; conditions included high heat, nonworking fans/misters, poor shading, dirty water, panting dogs, and many brachycephalic (short-nosed) dogs at risk in heat.
- PCHS contacted Lonoke County sheriff; after viewing conditions the prosecutor authorized seizure and PCHS took custody of approximately 127 adult dogs and 20 puppies (numbers vary in record).
- Nance was charged in Lonoke County Circuit Court with multiple animal-cruelty counts; a suppression hearing followed where PCHS witnesses testified Nance consented to a walkthrough; the court denied suppression and Nance was convicted on five misdemeanor counts.
- During the criminal case the State filed a motion under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-62-106 to divest custody; Nance filed petitions and constitutional challenges to § 5-62-106; the parties litigated custody and costs in circuit court.
- The circuit court entered a supplemental order: denied Nance’s constitutional challenge, ordered Nance to pay PCHS $6,425, divested custody of the five dogs she was convicted of abusing, and ordered return of the remaining dogs once she complied.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed denial of the suppression motion but dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal regarding § 5-62-106 matters for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (holding the statute confers initial jurisdiction in district court and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide those petitions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nance) | Defendant's Argument (State/PCHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search/seizure (motion to suppress) | Consent invalid because unlawful entry/search had already begun and presence of uniformed officer coerced consent | Nance freely and voluntarily consented to walkthrough; circuit court ruled only on consent | Denied suppression; court found consent voluntary based on testimony of PCHS witnesses |
| Constitutionality of Ark. Code § 5-62-106 (due process / taking property) | Statute allows taking of property without due process; facially and as-applied unconstitutional; no written notice was given | Statute authorizes seizure procedures and district-court petitions for custody/costs | Not reached on merits — dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (statute confers initial jurisdiction in district court) |
| Separation of powers / court rule invasion (placement of jurisdiction in district court) | Legislature improperly invaded court rulemaking and removed circuit-court authority over seized-property procedures | Statute provides district-court procedure; parties filed motions under statute in circuit court | Not reached on merits — dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; court declined to address separation-of-powers claim |
| Return of dogs / costs and State cross-appeal over unreturned dogs | All seized dogs should be returned to Nance (except those subject to convictions) | State argued dogs not returned because Nance had not paid reasonable expenses as required by § 5-62-106 | Not reached on merits — supplemental order vacated from review by dismissing appeal/cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction; only suppression ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. State, 2012 Ark. 280, 412 S.W.3d 143 (standard of review for suppression: de novo review with deference to trial court factual findings)
- Eastin v. State, 370 Ark. 10, 257 S.W.3d 58 (appellant must obtain clear ruling on suppression issues to preserve arguments)
- Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252, 273 S.W.3d 486 (court will not reach suppression arguments not decided below)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (voluntariness of consent is a factual inquiry under totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (knowledge of right to refuse consent not required for voluntariness)
- Hunter v. Runyan, 2011 Ark. 43, 382 S.W.3d 643 (subject-matter jurisdiction explained; court must have authority conferred by constitution, statute, or rule)