439 S.W.3d 705
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Officer observed Courtney Tiller's car repeatedly cross the center line and initiated a traffic stop.
- Officer noted bloodshot/watery eyes, lethargic/exaggerated movements, slow speech, and inability at first to produce insurance/registration (found in glove box). Tiller admitted taking Celexa (a CNS depressant) about an hour earlier and denied drinking.
- Officer asked Tiller to exit the vehicle and administered three standardized field sobriety tests (FST); he testified she showed multiple indicators of impairment on each test.
- Officer arrested Tiller for DWI, transported her to jail, read the implied-consent form; she initialed but refused the breath test. She was charged with first-offense DWI and implied-consent violation.
- Tiller moved to suppress the FST results (arguing an unlawful seizure) and evidence of her breath-test refusal (arguing Fourth Amendment and Rule 403 unfair-prejudice grounds). Trial court denied the motions; Tiller was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tiller) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s order to perform FST was an unconstitutional seizure requiring a warrant/consent | Officer: seizure without warrant or consent, so FST results should be suppressed | State: stop and ordering FST were justified by reasonable suspicion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 and precedent | Affirmed — officer had reasonable suspicion; seizure lawful without consent |
| Whether arrest had probable cause absent the FST results | Officer lacked probable cause without FST, so arrest unlawful | State: observations (driving erratically, bloodshot eyes, lethargic actions, Celexa admission, missing documents) gave probable cause | Affirmed — probable cause existed based on observations alone |
| Admissibility of refusal to submit to breath test given Fourth Amendment warrant argument | Refusal to take warrantless chemical test cannot be used against her; warrant required | State: Arkansas implied-consent statute supplies exception to warrant requirement, so no Fourth Amendment violation | Affirmed — implied-consent statute removes need for warrant; refusal admissible |
| Whether admission of refusal is inadmissible under Ark. R. Evid. 403 (unfair prejudice) | Refusal merely shows invocation of constitutional rights and is unfairly prejudicial | State: refusal is independently probative of intoxication (consciousness of guilt); probative value outweighs prejudice | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; refusal admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Frette v. City of Springdale, 331 Ark. 103 (Ark. 1998) (ordering occupant from vehicle and administering FST is a seizure but permissible with reasonable suspicion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1)
- Fisher v. State, 427 S.W.3d 743 (Ark. App. 2013) (officer’s observations — driving, bloodshot/watery eyes, smell, admission of drinking — supported reasonable suspicion and probable cause for DWI/FST)
- Medlock v. State, 332 Ark. 106 (Ark. 1998) (refusal to submit to chemical test is admissible circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (collection/testing of blood, breath, urine is a Fourth Amendment search requiring warrant or exception)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent an exception)
- Stewart v. State, 373 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. App. 2010) (officer may arrest without warrant where reasonable cause exists to believe DWI committed)
- Spicer v. State, 32 Ark. App. 209 (Ark. App. 1990) (defendant’s refusal to take test is independently relevant to intoxication)
- Hilton v. State, 96 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. App. 2003) (smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, admission of drinking, refusal to take PBT supported probable cause)