State v. HenryState v. Henry
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Glaze
Lead Opinion
This case involves the state’s petition for review of a decision by the Arkansas Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s ruling, denying the respondеnt’s motion to suppress marijuana evidence obtained from an arrest and subsequent vehicular search conducted by two Game and Fish Wildlife officеrs and three deputy sheriffs. The appellate court, relying on
The court of appeals’s decision was not published, so we first relate those facts necessary to an understanding and disposition of the suppression issue in this review. The two Game and Fish officers involved made thе initial arrest of the respondent and cited him for a hunting-out-of-season violation. Incident to the arrest, they removed from respondent’s openеd-door vehicle a loaded 30-06 rifle and a camouflage jacket, which were in plain view. The jacket contained rifle shells and a bag of grеen substance which appeared, and later proved, to be marijuana. The wildlife officers then summoned the Ashley County Sheriff’s Department, and upоn their arrival, three deputies conducted a further search of respondent’s vehicle that revealed additional marijuana. The record reflects that, at the time of respondent’s arrest, none of the five officers met the minimum employment standards established by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. See Regulation 1002, Minimum Standards for Employment or Appointment (1990). The state, by information, charged respondent with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Respondent entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24.3(b), after which the trial court denied his motion to suppress and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment.
Because respondent was charged with a valid charging instrument, he does not argue on аppeal that the felony charge should be dismissed. See Renshaw v. State, 303 Ark. 244, 795 S.W.2d 925 (1990); Huls v. State, 301 Ark. 572, 785 S.W.2d 467 (1990). Instead, his contention, and the appellate court’s decision, rests uрon
In Moore, unlike the instant case, there were fully qualified officers involved in the search made subsequent to Moore’s arrest, which had been effected by unqualified officers or ones not meeting the Commission’s minimum standards. We indicated that, under
The exclusionary rule is designed to deter unlawful рolice conduct. It compels respect for the Fourth Amendment by removing the incentive to disregard it. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960). Here, we are not dealing with unlawful рolice conduct which constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment and, accordingly, we are not compelled by federal law to apрly the rule. Still, we may apply it as a matter of state law if we deem it proper. See State v. Shepherd, 303 Ark. 447, 798 S.W.2d 45 (1990). In this case, we do not think it is fitting to apply the еxclusionary rule on state grounds. The goal of the statute at issue is to compel police department administrators to check the backgrounds of those seeking to become officers, and to hire only psychologically qualified persons to serve as policemen. It is a statute whiсh deals with standards for employment. It is not a statute which deals with police conduct. The goal of this statute and the goal of the exclusionary rule are different. Therefore, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule on state grounds. See Cherry v. State, 302 Ark. 462, 791 S.W.2d 354 (1990).
Consistent with our decision in Moore, we decline to read
While the court of appeals did not reach the issue nor does the state brief it, the respondent, citing
Clearly, Game and Fish officers are empowered to make arrests for violation of the game and fish laws.
For the reasons given above, we reverse the court of appeals’s decision, thereby reinstating the trial court’s ruling denying the respondent’s motion to suppress.
Holt, C.J., Dudley and Brown, JJ., dissent.Notes
We note that the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of the Moore case when this case was before it for consideration and decision.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The majority opinion, in сircumventing the unmistakable language of the statute, cites our recent case of Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514, 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990). In that case a non-qualified officer arrеsted the defendant for a traffic violation. He did nothing else. All subsequent actions were taken by qualified officers. Those subsequent actions by qualified officers resulted in obtaining evidence of five felonies. The trial court admitted the evidence in the trial for those felonies. Appellant appealed and argued that the evidence gathered by the qualified officers should be excluded under the Wong Sun or “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Wе refused to apply the exclusionary rule to the action of the qualified officers because (1) there had not been a violation of the Fоurth Amendment and (2) the statute neither states nor implies that subsequent actions taken by qualified officers should be held “invalid.”
In this case all actions were taken by non-qualified officers. There were no subsequent actions taken by qualified officers. There is no Wong Sun or “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument. The citаtion of Moore is wholly inapposite. The result of the inapposite citing of Moore results in the majority’s holding that a non-qualified officer’s actions are valid. That is in direct contravention of the statute. Accordingly, I dissent.
Holt, C.J., and Brown, J., join in this dissent.