Webb v. State
2011 Ark. 430
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Rodney Webb was convicted by a Drew County jury of possession of cocaine under Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-401 and received a 22-year sentence after the jury could not unanimously verdict on sentence.
- Webb challenged the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine found on his person, asserting violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Arkansas Constitution, based on a pretextual traffic stop and an impermissible search for weapons.
- Webb was charged July 1, 2009 with second-degree battery and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver; a suppression hearing occurred January 25, 2010.
- At the suppression hearing, Webb was on parole; a parole agreement signed in 2008 allegedly authorized warrantless searches, though the actual document was not introduced at the hearing.
- Deputies testified that a confidential informant alleged Webb was dealing cocaine from his vehicle; a traffic stop occurred after Webb allegedly crossed the center line; a pat-down search led to discovery of nine white rock-like substances in Webb’s groin area.
- The circuit court denied suppression on February 5, 2010, later conduct and findings detailed that the stop was valid and consent to search was given; Webb’s jury trial proceeded with Webb found guilty of possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parolee status and authority to search | Webb argues Chapman lacked authority to search Webb based on parole consent. | State contends consent and stop were valid; parole status reduces privacy expectation and supports search. | Affirmed; search deemed consensual following valid stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406 (2003) (review of suppression de novo with credibility owed to trial court)
- Lee v. State, 2009 Ark. 255 (2009) (credibility determinations defer to trial court)
- Montgomery v. State, 367 Ark. 485 (2006) (credibility and suppression testimony weighed by trial court)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (voluntariness of consent to search depends on totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent is a factual question)
- Scott v. State, 347 Ark. 767 (2002) (voluntariness does not require knowledge of right to refuse consent)
- State v. Nichols, 364 Ark. 1 (2005) (credibility of suppression witnesses belongs to trial court)