Wade v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 2

Appellant Wade was convicted of aggravated robbery by means of a firearm and sentenced as a habitual offender to 65 years.
The crime occurred in Batesville on February 15, 2011, with victims describing two white men, one in a brown jacket and brown ball cap and the other in a white ball cap and blue-and-white striped shirt.
Surveillance video from a local store corroborated the victims’ descriptions and showed two white males entering the store and leaving in a white Cadillac.
The Cadillac matching the description was found abandoned in Batesville; authorities impounded and searched it under a warrant, yielding Wade’s wallet, identification, and a blue-and-white striped shirt matching the victim’s description.
Detective Moser later located Wade after learning he had been jailed on other warrants; in the jail property room, Wade’s white ball cap and shoes were seized and photographed.
Wade moved to suppress the evidence as an unlawful Fourth Amendment search, but the trial court denied the motion and the State appealed to this court, which affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the seizure/inventory of the cap and shoes lawful under the Fourth Amendment?	Wade argues the items were illegally searched/seized.	State asserts the seizure was an inventory exception to the warrant requirement.	Yes; inventory procedures were lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory procedures to protect property, police, and risk when in custody)
Mitchell v. State, 321 Ark. 570 (1995) (inventory-based seizures upheld as an exception to search warrants)
Koster v. State, 374 Ark. 74 (2008) (preponderance standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
Henderson v. State, 16 Ark. App. 225 (1985) (inventory/seizure concepts applicable to clothing}]} } }}}}# Answer to=analysis code to=final మాత్ర { )