State v. Brewster
385 S.W.3d 844
Ark.2011Background
- State appealed an order suppressing evidence from a meth lab investigation; appeal dismissed for lack of proper State appeal jurisdiction under Rule 3; court acknowledged King abrogated Mann regarding police-created exigent circumstances but left state-law viability unresolved; record did not show circuit court relied on Mann; written order issued nunc pro tunc after bench ruling; King decision issued before appeal disposition but after ruling; decision focuses on whether the appeal should proceed under Rule 3 and whether Mann remains binding in Arkansas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the State's appeal proper under Rule 3 Crim.? | State contends Mann interpretation should stand or be abandoned. | Court must dismiss if not a proper State appeal. | Not a proper State appeal; dismissed. |
| Did the circuit court rely on Mann and misinterpret it? | State asserts Mann controlled the ruling. | Record shows no clear reliance on Mann and no explanation. | Record fails to show reliance on Mann; issue not preserved for appeal. |
| Does King abrogate Mann for Arkansas state law? | King abrogates Mann's reasonably foreseeable test. | King only affects federal Fourth Amendment analysis; state law may differ. | King abrogates Mann but the question was not properly preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. State, 357 Ark. 159, 161 S.W.3d 826 (2004) (abrogated by King as to police-created exigent circumstances under federal law)
- Nichols v. State, 364 Ark. 1, 216 S.W.3d 114 (2005) (states that a mixed question of law and fact is not reviewable by State)
- Kentucky v. King, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011) (abrogates Mann's test for police-created exigent circumstances (federal law))