*1 tried, to be not determine the issue itself. Ashley issue Eisele, 281, 445 Ark. Graves Appellant S.W. 2d 76 was entitled to have the issue of Daniels’ status under the guest jury. statute submitted to the
Reversed and remanded.
Charles TILLMAN and Charles HUGGINS
v. STATE of Arkansas and BYRD, Leandrew STATE Arkansas Jr.
CR 81-47 S.W. 2d Court of
Supreme Arkansas 8, Opinion delivered March [Rehearing April denied 1982.*] * Holt, Hickman, Dudley, JJ., grant would petition. *3 Kesl, P.A.,
Brown Kesl, fa by: M. for Marjorie appellant Byrd. Lassiter, P.A.,
McArthur McArthur, fa by: William C. Tillman and appellants Huggins. Clark, Gen., Holder, Steve Theodore Atty. by: Asst. Gen., Atty. for appellee. Judge. Appellants were convicted of theft Hays,
Steele property of a burglary residence Lonoke County, receiving concurrent ten year sentences on each For charge. reversal, they the trial allege court erred in not suppressing warrant, evidence seized without a in not the permitting introduction of statements elicited from them the police, and in a permitting police officer to give opinion testimony. We find no error. noon on after shortly us are that
The facts given 1980, three the citizen followed February private Scott, a distance Rock to near from North Little appellants miles, them slow down and watched of about 15 the belief formed along way. the He scrutinize residences for a burglary, residences were they “casing” that 130 and Highway one at the intersection particularly he drove his own Leaving pursuits, Road. Walker’s Corner where he reported station at police England Swint knew Alan Swint. Mr. information to Sheriff Deputy settled, subjected been to a to have sparsely the location of George the residence rash of recent and knew burglaries Cadillac, car, a bronze point. Brown to be at that Appellants’ to the scene directly was unfamiliar to him. Swint went di- where he saw the Cadillac but stopped, positioned suggest across the such manner agonally highway radioed driveway. backed from the Brown Swint having just officer to as he followed the investigate another residence another signalled police In North Little Rock he appellants. to assist him and that he help stopped vehicle with for suspicion and told them were held occupants being he received a After burglary. handcuffing had, fact, been report radio Brown residence information, the trunk burglarized. opened With that he maintains, One, he garment bags. and observed two *4 him to articles of silver see partially opened, enabling On was suppress service. those facts motion to appellants’ denied.
I.
and detention
the initial stop
maintain
Appellants
no probable
and there was
unlawful arrest
seizure
an
for the search. We disagree.
cause
3.1
a
gives
police
Criminal Procedure
Our Rule of
minutes1 any
to 15
up
to
and detain
right
officer
stop
Rule
felony.
a
he
has committed
reasonably suspects
person
or
imaginary
purely
the test as more than
defines
2.1
Even
cause.
but less than
conjectural suspicion,
probable
presumably
not an issue here and
had not exceeded
1Time is
suspected burglary
when the
was confirmed.
10 to 15 minutes
less
a
standard of
cause
much
than
higher
requires
as
is said to exist
if the circumstances
certainty,
it
simply
in
prudent
known
the officer would warrant a
man
a
believing
had committed a crime.
v. United
suspect
Henry
States,
States,
(1958);
Hence, relative, these considerations are and can be to a ladder compared with four at the level is rungs: highest crime; certain inas the case to a knowledge, eyewitness of an cause, next is probable certainty, less than a but enough man; a a satisfy prudent yet lower reasonable suspicion; level, at the lowest a bare suspicion, or imaginary founded on more than nothing a hunch. Applying case, standard this we of reason- regard requirements able suspicion been having satisfied. fully
To validate this conclusion one look no need farther than the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Ohio, in Court Terry The circumstances that case provide a striking Terry to this case. analogy appealed conviction for He carrying weapon. a concealed was observed a by detective about one afternoon. The 2:30 officer’s in interest Terry and two companions was aroused because they walked back and particular forth block in a peering store window and then at the corner. conferring The officer became suspicious and believed the men were men, the store for a “casing” robbery. He approached officer, identified himself as a police and asked for their names; he was not with acquainted any of the three name sight or and had received no information them concerning from any source. When the men “mumbled something” response to his question the grabbed officer Terry, “spun him around” to frisk him and found a pistol his overcoat States, pocket. Supreme Court of the United whose *5 sensitivity to Fourth Amendment constraints needs no defense, affirmed a decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio evidence, that the revolver was in properly holding admitted that the officer had grounds Terry reasonable to believe that armed and dangerous and his that behavior justified suspects stop.
investigative gone that the court noted The themselves, through acts, in of while innocent a series investigation. together And warranted further taken when while the could variety entirely intuition, rely he his on officer could not observing people experience a under on draw his rationally indis- are The cases of circumstances. holding v. in Adams tinguishable. was reached A similar Williams, U.S. 143 (1975), Brignoni-Ponce, v.
In United States problem Border States with of United court dealt authority stop the Mexican near automobiles Patrol’s Terry Referring Ohio, court said: v. border. policeman require a The Fourth Amendment does not necessary precise lacks the levelof information who shrug simply his shoulders cause to arrest to escape. to be the essence On a crime to a criminal allow occur or may contrary, recognizes Terry that it response good police adopt work an intermediate suspicious individual, in order to A . . . brief quo identity the status determine his or to maintain may obtaining momentarily more information, while light to the be most known facts (Emphasis supplied.) at the time. officer (1980), Georgia, Terry v. Ohio In Reid 448 U.S. holding can was described as that conduct itself lawful by suspicion when viewed as to a reasonable such arouse police officer. trained (1981), Cortez, the court U.S. 411
In United States police to draw are able that while trained officers observed inferences might well elude and make deductions investigatory stops analysis must be others, in the final person objective justified that the some manifestation picture Noting activity. that whole engaged in criminal the court said: must be considered certainties, process but with hard does not deal probabilities probabilities. Long with before the law people practical such, formulated was articulated as *6 be- about human conclusions common-sense certain the to do havior; are permitted factfinders as jurors — Finally, officers. are law enforcement and so same weighed and must seen collected he the evidence thus scholars, as but analysis by in terms library not in the law those versed understood enforce- field (Emphasis supplied.) ment. the are found case manifestations objective
In this distance a were considerable suspects fact that the followed be if to way as residences study along and observed them; are to those circumstances “casing” coupled area that the and observations of Officer Swint knowledge was the vehicle frequently had been that burglarized, him, him were unknown to unfamiliar occupants driveway to have from the Brown just emerged thought to an after informant observed them minutes hour indicate the residence. those circumstances “casing” Singly, sus- to a nothing; collectively, up add — The case v. Ohio may Terry than picion. stronger windows, homes, in- store are stores and private unlike tended to attract the initial scrutiny. We conclude that suspicion of the was based on reasonable a hence not violation of the Fourth Amendment. that second argument phase appellants’ of the of the was a violation
warrantless search automobile within Amendment. But we believe the search comes Fourth in Carroll v. United the “automobile announced exception” States, not contend (1925). The State does (assuming appel search was incidental lawful arrest are arrest), such searches lants’ detention amounted to an vehicle. of the compartment to the passenger restricted Belton,1 claimed, isWhat U.S. 1028 New York learned think, Officer Swint we is that when correctly that at burglarized, had been the Brown residence point contained the vehicle to believe he cause and, hence, evidence of the crime of the vehicle search policeman it was 2Where held that “when a has made a lawful automobile, may, occupant arrest of the of an he as a custodial contemporaneous arrest, compart passenger incident of search the ment of that automobile.” P., Rule 14.1 proper. (a), A. R. Crim. gives officer the to make a warrantless right search of a vehicle detained on a if he has public way reasonable cause to believe the vehicle *7 seizure, contains evidence subject and exigent circum stances immediate require action to prevent removal or destruction of such evidence. Rule is 14.1 consistent with States, Carroll v. United in search and permitting seizure whenever cause “probable to believe that the area contains evidence of a crime conjoins with any exigency out of arising and mobility imminent of disappearance that same constitutionally protected area.”3 See also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. (1970). 42
Appellants State, 150, cite Burkett v. Ark. 271 S.W. 607 (1980), State, 610, 399 and 2d Scisney Ark. 270 605 S.W. 2d 451 where (1980). we held a warrantless search of wrapped parcels and suitcases was improper. But distinguishing aspect is that in those cases the initial arrest was due merely to a faulty tail and light there was a lack of probable cause to believe the vehicles contained marijuana.
Appellants also press argument that the garment and, hence, were bags closed under the “suitcase doctrine” there was an containers, expectation in such privacy Sanders, recognized Arkansas v. (1979), Chadwick, United States v. 1U.S. (1977). But that fact issue was disputed and the trial court apparently relied on the officer’s that one testimony of the garment bags open and its contents clearly visible to him. Had the garment bags closed, been then the rationale of the suitcase doctrine might arguably on the apply theory that when the and the . suspects containers are in custody, exigent circumstances disappear and a warrant can be sought at leisure. But even that is a debatable point, 764, as the language of footnote page Sanders, Arkansas v. supra, suggests: Not all containers and found packages by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of — Exception: 3“The Automobile What It Is and What It Is Not A by Rationale in Search of a Judge Moylan, Clearer Label” Charles Mercer Law Review Thus, (for some containers Fourth Amendment. their gun case) by or a rools a kit burglar example expectation any nature cannot very support inferred can be contents because their of privacy appearance. outward their circum- exigent argue inferentially
Appellants itself are vehicle when the suspects disappear stances and, if will that is the law reason prevails, but not custody, can the size suitcases the law. Containers not become but police custody impracticality secured readily self-evident, as the United States an automobile securing noted supra, Court in Chambers Maroney, Supreme court exception: where the reviewed the automobile *8 unnecessary a search warrant Carroll v. holds where there is cause to search an automobile movable, on the the car is the stopped highway; alerted, are the car’s contents never occupants may and be found if Hence an again a warrant must obtained. immediate search is constitutionally permissible. 51.) (Page
This is not to existence of deny the that school of cases which has barred a of warrantless search automobiles where and both the the vehicle are in suspect (See custody. Jenkins State, 249, State, v. Ark. 253 485 S.W. 541 v. (1972), 2d Steel 159, 248 Ark. 450 (1970), S.W. New Coolidge 2d States, (1971), U.S. 443 Preston v. United Hampshire, (1963).) U.S. 364 But those decisions a search distinguish at scene of arrest as to a search remote in opposed time arrest, circumstances and distance from the of the under situs more conducive to of search warrant. We securing think trial court denied the motion correctly to suppress.
II. Secondly, appellants ascribe error to the refusal to allow the introduction of statements elicited from them police. Although appellants declined to testify, they sought the police introduce statements each had after their given The statements articles they arrest. claimed bought $20,000.00 a mink coat and an estimated worth (consisting from two men met that service) of silver $300.00 at a restaurant and known to them morning McDonald’s an Larry Mike. The statements were offered as only interest, against (3), admission under Rule 804 penal (b) Evidence, Rules of Uniform Ark. Ann. (Repl. Stat. 28-1001 § on the 1979), theory the statements them to exposed receiving stolen Before statements charge property. interest are admissible under against penal Rule 804 court must be satisfied that the corroborating circumstances indicate the clearly trustworthiness the statement. See State, 208, 717, Welch Ark. S.W. cert. den. 449 2d U.S. 996 The circumstances these surrounding statements fail to meet that test decidedly and the trial court to exclude right them.
III. Finally, appellants contend that the court erred in allowing an deputy give opinion that the Cadillac had backed from the Brown driveway just before he saw it. Rule Evidence, Uniform Rules of allows a lay witness to state if opinion it is rationally based on his perception would be helpful to a clear understanding his testimony or to the determination of a fact issue. Whether the car had backed from the Brown was a driveway relevant issue. But more, its diagonal in the position highway, relative to the *9 it, and its driveway, movement as he observed provided rational basis for the he opinion gave. The difficulty the movement of verbalizing and objects events physical often requires some degree opinion the observer and automobiles, and speed movement of as of people, illustrate the State, reason for the rule. See Ark. Mathis v. 267 904, 591 S.W. err App. (1979). 2d The trial court did not 279 allowing testimony.
The judgments are affirmed.
Hickman, consurs. J., Holt, Purtle, Dudley, and dissent. JJ., be- I Hickman, concur concurring. Justice, Darrell dissenting opinion expressed my the views I cause State, (1980). Ark. 594 S.W. Moore v. 2d 245 Dudley, The dissenting. plurality Justice, H. Robert seizures, one, of the defendants two a seizure affirms opinion two, violate the Fourth Both a seizure of evidence. and Amendment.
I of the Seizure Defendants its detaining occupants an automobile Stopping of the Fourth meaning within the constitute seizure Prouse, A (1979), Amendment. Delaware v. 440 U.S. arresting arrest is valid when the only without a warrant that has believe the arrested officer grounds has committed a crime. Ark. Stat. Ann. 43-403 person § 208, 458 State, 1977); Ark. S.W. (Repl. 2d Johnson Reasonable under the Arkansas statute grounds with the federal standard of cause for arrest. equate probable States, F. (8th United Cir. Tweedy 1970). 2d 702 majority opinion admits that at time impliedly Deputy Swint he did not know a stopped appellants crime and, moment, been committed did not at have probable Yet, cause for arrest. that is what as the occurred exactly were arrested without The tes cause. timony Swint clear: Deputy
Q. Where were when you you located stopped defendants?
A. south of on 130. Superwood Highway Just Did Q. you turn on your lights? Yes, A. sir. And
Q. did did you or have promptly stop, give chase? No, sir,
A. they promptly stopped. *10 vehicle, When what did do? Q. you stopped you A. Came out with my advised shotgun, subjects car, out step vehicle, placed them on the trunk of down, them, them patted and one handcuffed time, at a them in placed vehicle. my I advised them were they being held on suspicion burglary. So Q. out, upon taking them advised them you were under arrest suspicion burglary? for A. Right. Q. them, And you restrained placed them physically under arrest in your vehicle in Pulaski County? A. Yes, sir. you And what
Q. did do with the three defendants and with the car at that time? time, time,
A. At that about that Officer Todd had everything arrived. I told him about and I think an England England officer, police officer had also ar- rived, go and he advised to ahead and take them to the get Lonoke England Sheriff’s office and we would officer to gets stand the vehicle until the wrecker there. I did so. Q. you transport
Did then the three defendants to the jail? Yes,
A. sir. opposed arrest, To constitute investigatory an to stop, there must One, be three simultaneous occurrences. Two, there performed must a seizure. the seizure bemust with arrest, the intent to make an rather than make a temporary investigation, prisoner three, must un- being merely derstand he is being arrested rather than stopped investigation. These three events occurred. The were arrested without cause and as a result, the evidence suppressed. seized should have been Nothing point. more need be said this on plurality my deny brothers on this bench
287 investigatory an arrest, only insist there was an but was there based seizures which new dimension relatively that stop, and still comply be made cause can on less than probable Amendment. standard of Fourth the reasonableness with Procedure, Ark. Stat. the Rules Criminal and 3 of Rules 2 Contacts” labeled "Pre-Arrest 1977), 4A (Repl. Ann. Vol. Arrest,” investigatory deal with "Detention Without stops.
Rule 3.1 that a provides law enforcement officer may detain, minutes, for up to fifteen person who he any committed, reasonably is suspects committing, has or is about to felony. commit a Reasonable is suspicion required for an investigatory stop distinguished from the probable cause required for an arrest. This lesser standard is defined in Rule as: 2.1
“Reasonable suspicion” means a suspicion based on facts or circumstances which of themselves do not rise to the give probable cause requisite justify a arrest, lawful but which rise to more than a give bare is, that suspicion; suspicion that reasonable as to an opposed imaginary or purely, conjectural sus- picion.
The Supreme Court of the United States has now four recognized situations where on seizures based less than cause, or reasonable have suspicion, complied with the Erickson, reasonableness standard. See Pronounce- ments the United States Supreme Court Relating 1980-81, Criminal Law Field The National Journal Defense, Criminal VII Vol.
First, Ohio, v. Terry 1 a limited (1968) U.S. stop 392 Second, Williams, and frisk was approved. Adams U.S. 143 (1972) stop an approved investigate informant’s that tip person was armed and stopped Third, carrying narcotics. in United States v. Brignoni- Ponce, U.S. (1975), Court held border that patrol officers may make investigatory of vehicles near stops country’s borders if there are facts that articulable reason ably warrant a suspicion that the vehicle contains illegal Cortez, Fourth, in United States
aliens. a case (1981), an involving investigatory similar to the stop us, one before the Court held that facts objective circumstantial evidence suggesting a particular vehicle be involved in may criminal activity may a sufficient provide basis to justify investigatory of that vehicle. Recog- *12 nizing that are investigatory stops to restraints subject against unreasonable seizures imposed by Fourth Amendment, the Court defined the factors that create an is, objective be, manifestation that the person or is about engaged criminal The activity. of that analysis objective manifestation may include articulation objective ob- servations, information from police or reports, considera- tion of modes or patterns operation criminals. It is from these data that a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions that might elude an untrained person. United Cortez, States v. supra.
Our rule and the statute comparative authorize an State, Hill v. investigatory stop, 71, Ark. S.W. 2d State, Holmes (1982); Ark. 561 S.W. 2d (1978), and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that investigatory valid. United States can be stops Cortez, The supra. Fourth Amendment does not require cause or grounds this type stop. standard required for an investigatory is a reason- stop able suspicion shown objective manifestation that is, been, be, has suspect or is about engaged criminal activity.
In the case at bar the arresting officer had a that report three men were reconnoitering residences. He knew there However, been previous burglaries in the area. he did know that a crime not had been committed and he did not know about one was to be committed. He did arguably not think he had cause to stop when first he saw them he did because not them. He stop had no additonal articulable facts when he finally car. stopped appellants’
At suppression hearing deputy admitted that he only had the information from an unknown and unidenti- informant, fiable there knowledge had been prior Brown’s car was near in the area and appellants’ burglaries is clear. testimony home. His them some distance So at the time
Q. you stopped road, were, time, of any at that not aware down you had committed? they crime A. I had committed one. believed that, I understand believed even Q. you though you had no of that. knowledge time, no,
A. No at that sir. proof did Q. You not even know whether a crime had been committed, is that correct? sure, no,
A. For sir. So Q. you made a Pulaski out of County your jurisdiction?
A. with a Pulaski Along County Deputy. were not
Q. They to evade no hot trying you, pursuit? No, A. sir. *13 And
Q. only thing you were that arrest basing on was the discussion that had you had with an unknown male? Yes,
A. sir. You had no Q. of whether what he was knowledge untruthful, was telling you or truthful reliable or unreliable? me, no,
A. At the time he was telling sir. arrest, Q. you So made the in you custody, had them them in placed your vehicle before learned of you any violation, if any, that had they committed? I had them
A. vehicle before certain my I was whether or not the residence had been burglarized. Did ever Q. call on the radio and tell these you men had burglarized the place? No, sir.
A. Or did they Q. give you any information concerning them burglarizing home? No, sir,
A. he advised me the residence had been burglarized.
Q. only So the knew time was thing you you at that observed this vehicle on the road in front of or near this home, and had followed it? Yes,
A. sir. That’s had to connect them Q. only thing you any with crime in this area? Yes,
A. sir. There no introduced to demonstrate testimony modes or There was no patterns burglaries. the earlier if to show the taken testimony burglaries place earlier or at daytime no to demonstrate if the night; testimony one or more no about police suspected burglars; testimony used; transportation method of and no about testimony or the earlier fingerprints burglaries. from footprints Dep- admitted he Swint did not know and he knew uty about their The nothing backgrounds. manner appellants’ not dress was unusual there was nothing suspicious about their appearance. He did not articulate a quite simply suspicion.
Articulated or objective facts articulated circumstantial evidence that a vehicle be in- suggesting may particular volved criminal can a sufficient basis to activity provide an justify investigative of a is vehicle. The test whether — under the of the totality circumstances the whole picture — the officers are able to articulate particularized objective basis for suspecting particular person stopped of criminal activity. The in the is the specificity information touchstone on which a legitimate investigative stop made. Cortez, United States In the case before us the supra. officer did not articulate facts to specific reasonably suspect appellants had committed a An crime. inarticulable hunch is not sufficient justify investigatory stop. articulation facts or data is the from only testimony which *14 the trial court can determine police whether a trained officer has drawn inferences and made valid decisions or whether an officer just played a hunch with no real grounds. When a officer does not articulate for the suspicion it investigatory stop should declared unlawful. to the
A facts example, using hypothetical comparable bar, case at will demonstrate the reason. the you, Suppose opinion, reader of this own from strays away a and it puppy blocks, your home. You and get your car drive a few across line, a and county begin carefully your for looking pup. “casing” sees you unknown unidentifiable person Some and and knows neighborhood policeman the calls the A police. and he your that there have been in the area sees burglaries some burglarized car front of a house had been which facts months to the those ago. According plurality opinion are the to back your sufficient for officer follow into you doctrine, (under a not discussed original county pursuit of “hot plurality investigate”) stop you to Rule 3.1. were no stronger There facts articu- pursuant in the would been principal lated case. have you Just case, on an unarticulable hunch in the stopped hypothetical these were The reason stopped. requiring of a articulation reasonable suspicion is obvious.
Since was not shown to be lawful the evidence have States, should been excluded. United Wong Sun v. (1963). U.S. 471
II Seizure of the Evidence theOn proof before the trial court the evidence should been have for a suppressed second The general reason. rule is se, seizure of is, evidence without a warrant per States, unreasonable. Katz v. United 389 U.S.
Unless the warrantless seizure this case fits into an exception evidence seized must be The facts suppressed. determine whether this case fits into an exception.
After the appellants were and in handcuffed the patrol car Deputy Swint opened the trunk of their car was which on parked trunk, highway. He saw two in the bags one on flowered-type bottom a black one on top. flowered-type bag shut but the black zipped one was partially and the unzipped saw silver deputy some inside. He stated that he could not identify it as silver belonging the Browns and he admitted that he for all knew it could have belonged to appellants. He closed the trunk and called Fulmer’s Wrecker Service to tow the car some type sheriff’s at compound Lonoke. Miles and hours perhaps later, at some of sheriff’s type a warrantless compound, *15 search of the car was conducted. Swint’s Deputy testimony emphatic that the car was not searched on the highway:
Q. But your is that did testimony you not search the vehicle on the highway? No,
A. sir. Q. Irrspective you how your wrote report, Mr. Swint, did you search those suitcases on the highway? No, A. sir. Were searched
Q. at the Sheriff’s office? A. They office, inventoried at the Sheriff’s yes, sir.
MR. EDWARDS: That’s all. THE COURT: Was removed anything from the automobile before it was returned to the Sheriff’s office?
A. the three people. Just THE COURT: Any property any kind? No, A. sir.
Q. You control, had the vehicle under is that correct? You had the three men out of it? Yes,
A. sir.
Q. You had the keys it? Yes,
A. sir. You Q. had officers there it? guarding Yes, A. sir. And it
Q. was returned to the Sheriff’s office? Yes, A. sir.
Q. there, And I assume once it or got wherever the located, Sheriff’s office is you it under guard, or whatever it took to make it secure? Yes,
A. sir. Those facts do not allow this case to fit into an exception the general rule. The Supreme Court of the United States has set forth one only narrowly drawn where exception a seizure of evidence can be based on less than probable cause. It is the search protective doctrine Ohio, set out in Terry supra,
293 Williams, search of the a It authorizes supra. and Adams v. reachable by is immediately and that area which clothing that the is exception of this The basis the arrested person. himself that officer has to assure arresting every right weapon, although the does not have within reach a person excep- of this The rationale evidence. may weapon arrest, or stop, investigatory to an is applicable tion rule against to the general This exception seizure. other any was not a because this is not applicable searches warrantless the officer’s protection. frisk for limited not as severely
There is another that is exception cause and is first It is based on exception. probable as the doctrine, incident to it is not applicable. search arrest but in then a an accused is custody, “Once under arrest warrant, at is simply search made another without a place incident U.S. Maroney, not arrest.” Chambers v. 399 42 249, State, 485 (1970), v. Ark. S.W. 2d quoted 253 Jenkins (1972). 541 The view” 395 “plain California, Chimel v. exception, not (1969), U.S. is not Swint did applicable Deputy 752 have view of the inside of the trunk of the car. plain
The concedes that the most recent plurality opinion case, Belton, “automobile exception” New York 450 U.S. “auto- is not that the (1981), argues but 1925 applicable States, mobile v. United exception” case Carroll The case states that (1925) is applicable. it is not practical warrantless search is valid “where secure a warrant because the vehicle can be moved quickly out of the or locality j urisdiction which warrant must ’’ be sought. In this case the car was in and could not custody be moved. states: plurality opinion claimed, think,
What we is that when correctly Officer Swint learned the Brown residence had been at that he had cause to burglarized, point probable and, believe vehicle contained evidence of the crime hence, a search of the vehicle was proper. by as announced to the law contrary statement is
The quoted and followed States Court of United the Supreme State, we stated: at where supra court Jenkins Chambers case in the language that there is It is true alone is sufficient cause that suggesting automobile, but search of an a warrantless sustain case in the later of view seems to have been rejected point 403 U.S. Coolidge Hampshire, v. New *17 for the this upon point speaking There Stewart Justice court, contrary say had this to about of the majority in the dissent White’s taken position Justice with Mr. agree case: “If we were to Coolidge Justice prob- have may, the whenever police White that of cause, for the entry purpose a warrantless make able arrest, and searches and that seizures making prob- se reasonable given are likewise per automobiles cause, or seizure same search logic any then the by able warrant, would could be and we carried without a out of the Amendment out the Fourth have read simply Constitution. could contend that the case validly plurality Bannister, 1 stands 1980)
Colorado v. 449 U.S. curiam (per cause for the that when the have proposition police probable believe the vehicle evidence of a crime a contains is the been warrantless search even when car has permissible to the that leaves Arkansas police moved station. Perhaps cases, for our higher with a standard than the United States which are hold that a warrantless search of directly point, a vehicle invalid unless there is both cause State, State, v. circumstances. Steel exigent supra; Jenkins 159, 450 cases (1970). directly Ark. S.W. Arkansas 2d our govern should even if the believe that point plurality standard is a more standard than the minimum stringent the of the United by Constitution States. required need not determine whether the is more We rule than from distilled principles restrictive for, decisions, there is various Court of course Supreme no constitutional of law which objection a rule more than the liberty to individual provides protection United the Constitution minimum required States. State, 636 Ark. S.W.
Meadows v. 2d However, written if all that has been even one discards bags, to the search of appellants’ to this point peripheral Both were bags the search of the still must fail. bags closed, one to- being zipped with the black completely and the flowered one gether completely being partially In the 450 U.S. California, recent case Robbins zipped. officers (1981), stopped the California Patrol Highway car he was petitioner’s driving erratically. because for his license and One of the officesr asked petitioner and when he the car door to out registration, get opened the officers smoke. registration, marijuana smelled One down, of the officers and discovered a patted petitioner vial of The officers then searched the liquid. passenger of the car and found as well as compartment marijuana for its use. After in the equipment petitioner putting car, patrol the officers of the station opened tailgate wagon, uncovered a recessed luggage compartment, *18 found two and sealed in oblong packages green wrapped The officers the garbage bags. opaque plastic unwrapped marijuana. and found 30 of pounds packages Petitioner, offenses, who was with various charged drug filed a motion to pretrial the found in suppress marijuana the two The packages. motion was denied and petitioner was convicted. The of California Court affirmed the Appeals Certiorari was the judgment. granted and case re- for further manded Sanders, consideration of Arkansas v. light remand, U.S. On the court of again found the appeals warrantless of the opening pack- constitutionally since the trial ages permissible, court could have reasonably concluded that the contents the could have been inferred from outward packages their The Court because of appearance. again granted certiorari continuing the as to whether containers uncertainty closed during found lawful warrantless automobile searches may be searched without a warrant. Stewart, the by decision written In plurality Justice the a closed container are fully held that contents of
Court the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, protected container that its contents are plain the is such unless view. Chadwick, 1 (1977) on
Relying United States Sanders, rejected Arkansas v. supra, Court that the to the Fourth exception” contention “automobile warrantless justifies Amendment warrant requirement automobile. of closed found inside the search containers make it Chadwick and Sanders Stewart stated that Justice search closed found in a lawful piece luggage clear that a car, to the same extent is constitutionally protected else. anywhere found pieces luggage closed may that the nature of the container argued Respondent and that the Fourth diminish the constitutional protection used to commonly containers protects only Amendment rejected argument effects. The Court transport personal (1) people reasons: Fourth Amendment protects for two effects, or im- whether the effects are personal and their it be difficult if (2) would not impossible personal; what is com- criteria to determine any objective perceive effects. used monly transport personal did marijuana that the wrapped Stewart stated Justice announced in a footnote in under exceptions not fall Sanders, that con- footnote states supra. Arkansas inferred their outward contents can be from tainers whose case, a kit of tools or a burglary gun example appearance, view, are do not open whose contents to plain and containers a search warrant under Fourth Amendment. require is not in a container refer to items exceptions These *19 their closed, to so or containers which announce clearly contents, their whether their distinctive by configuration, otherwise, to or that their contents are obvious transparency, vague the Stewart concluded that an observer. Justice heard he had of the officer who said that police testimony did not way in a particular was wrapped that contraband marijuana is ordinarily establish that this “packaged way,” the thus, within did not the to fall packages cause footnote, the Court exceptions In a in Sanders. announced argue of prosecution that the search did not the stated the or that arrest packages to a lawful custodial incident was packages. the See petitioner search consented supra. Belton, York New ignored. supra, not be
Robbins, should opinion ground plurality given A second validating the search is: (a), gives P., . Rule R. an officer
. . 14.1 A. Crim. right detained to make a warrantless search of a vehicle public way on a if he has cause to believethe subject seizure, vehicle contains evidence and exi- gent pre- require circumstances immediate action vent removal or destruction of such evidence. (a) simply applicable.
Rule 14.1 is not was it was vehicle way” public searched; not “detained on a locked when rather compound. testimony in a sheriff’s There was no subject “evidence” to seizure. testified No witness that even piece property one were no the Browns’ was identifiable. There
exigent up circumstances in a as the car locked compound appellants jail. and the inwere
Perhaps, forgotten proper case, in this we have role appellate nothing nothing of the court. It more and less to review the trial below and determine whether the than appellants perfect trial, trial, received a fair not a but a fair Supreme of this court as as that of trial. Precedent well the United States hold that the evidence should Court have been
suppressed. and, The trial did not so court hold consequence, receive a did not fair trial. I apellants grant a new and fair trial. I would dissent. I am authorized to state that Mr. Holt and Mr. Justice opinion. join in this Purtle
Justice