Hoay v. State, 01-1108
| Decision Date | 04 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | 01-1108 |
| Citation | 71 S.W.3d 573 |
| Parties | JAMES HOAY, APPELLANT, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE,SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered 4 April 2002 APPEAL FROM THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR01-1108, HON. JOHN FOGLEMAN, JUDGE, REVERSED AND REMANDED COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice This is an appeal by appellant James Hoay from a conditional plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to eighteen months to serve in prison followed by five years' suspended imposition of sentence. He appeals his conditional plea under Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b) based on the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the seizure of methamphetamine following an illegal traffic stop. We reverse the order denying the suppression and remand this case for determination of the question of who was responsible for not quashing an outstanding arrest warrant that led to Hoay's invalid arrest. On |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
REVERSED AND REMANDED
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
This is an appeal by appellant James Hoay from a conditional plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to eighteen months to serve in prison followed by five years' suspended imposition of sentence. He appeals his conditional plea under Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b) based on the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the seizure of methamphetamine following an illegal traffic stop. We reverse the order denying the suppression and remand this case for determination of the question of who was responsible for not quashing an outstanding arrest warrant that led to Hoay's invalid arrest.
On July 9, 1999, during the early evening hours, Officer Jeff Midgett of the Clay County Sheriff's Department observed a truck driven by Hoay move to the right of the fog line, cross the center line twice, and drive to the right of the fog line again for approximately one-half a mile to one mile. At that point, Officer Midgett stopped the vehicle. As the truck pulled off to the side of the road, the police officer saw the driver "bending over . . . toward the floorboard" of his vehicle. The driver identified himself as James Hoay, and he gave the police officer his driver's license. The police officer did not detect the smell of alcohol and requested no field sobriety tests. He ran the driver's license through the National Crime Information Center and found that there was an outstanding arrest warrant on Hoay issued from Greene County.
Officer Midgett then checked with two dispatchers in the Greene County Sheriff's Department and verified that an arrest warrant on Hoay was outstanding due to his failure to appear in court on a felony charge for possession of a controlled substance. The police officer returned to Hoay's vehicle and arrested Hoay on the outstanding warrant and handcuffed him. At that point he observed a bulge in one of Hoay's socks and pulled the sock down. He found a ziploc bag which contained crystal methamphetamine. In a bag with personal belongings located in the truck, Officer Midgett found a separate plastic bag and razor blades.
Hoay was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. He moved to suppress the methamphetamine seized based on the fact that the Greene County warrant had been set aside and, thus, the arrest was invalid. In support of his motion, Hoay introduced a Greene County docket sheet showing that the arrest warrant was issued on February 11, 1999, and quashed on April 20, 1999. The motion was denied. The trial court specifically found that Officer Midgett was operating in good faith in making the arrest, though the court also noted that there was some breakdown in communication with the Greene County Sheriff's office. Hoay then entered his conditional plea to possession of methamphetamine. The drug paraphernalia charge was nolle prossed.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals suppressed the drugs seized and remanded the case. Hoay v. State, 75 Ark. App. 103, 55 S.W.3d 782 (2001). We granted the state's petition for review. When reviewing a case, we treat the matter as if the appeal were originally filed in this court. Thompson v. State, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901 (1998).
Hoay contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. This court has said that the proper standard for reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to suppress is to "make an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State." Bunch v. State, 346 Ark. 33, 57 S.W.3d 124 (2001) (quoting Wright v. State, 335 Ark. 395, 983 S.W.2d 391 (1998)). The court will only reverse if the trial court's ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Hoay urges that Officer Midgett lacked reasonable suspicion to effect the traffic stop. We disagree. Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part:
A law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit (1) a felony, or (2) a misdemeanor involving danger or forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to property, if such action is reasonably necessary either to obtain or verify the identification of the person or to determine the lawfulness of his conduct.
Officer Midgett observed Hoay weaving across the road lines for a substantial distance. That certainly would constitute reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated, even though Midgett did not smell alcohol on Hoay's breath after the stop. We conclude that there was no error by Midgett in making the stop. See Piercefield v. State, 316 Ark. 128, 871 S.W.2d 348 (1994).
Hoay's primary point on appeal is that he was arrested pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant and that, as a consequence, the subsequent search was invalid. The State's retort is that Officer Midgett operated in good faith in making the arrest and seizing the drugs and, indeed, did not only receive the information regarding the outstanding warrant from the NCIC but verified it twice through the Greene County Sheriff's dispatcher.
In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set the standard for searches and seizures made in good faith. In Leon, the Court confronted the question of a police officer's good faith reliance on a magistrate's determination of probable cause in issuing a search warrant which was found to be invalid. The Court said that the purpose of the exclusionary rule for unconstitutional searches is to "deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." 468 U.S. at 916. The Court went on to say that "[i]f exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant is to have any deterrent effect, therefore, it must alter the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments." Id. at 918. The Court further found that suppression of evidence pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis when the purposes of the exclusionary rule will be furthered. Quoting United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531 (1975), the Court reasoned that evidence should only be suppressed if the particular officer "had knowledge, or may properly [have been] charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 919 (quoting United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. at 539). The Court concluded that where an officer is acting in good faith, using an objective standard, a subsequently invalidated warrant obtained from a magistrate will not operate to trigger the exclusionary rule. Id. at 920-21.
In Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), the Court was confronted with a situation that bears striking similarities to the case at hand. In Evans, a police officer pulled the defendant over after he violated a traffic law. After learning that the defendant's driver's license was suspended, the police officer entered the defendant's license into a data terminal in his patrol car. He discovered that the defendant had a outstanding misdemeanor warrant. Based on the outstanding warrant, the police officer arrested Evans and handcuffed him. After doing so, he discovered that Evans had a marijuana cigarette. Later, it came to light that the misdemeanor arrest warrant had been quashed seventeen days prior to the arrest, but the evidence showed that a court clerk had made the computer error and not the sheriff's office. The Court concluded that a court clerk must have been responsible for the error and, thus, exclusion of the evidence would serve no deterrent effect on the police department. The Court said:
If court employees were responsible for the erroneous computer record, the exclusion of evidence at trial would not sufficiently deter future errors so as to warrant such a severe sanction. First, as we noted in Leon, the exclusionary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct, not mistakes by court employees. Second, respondent offers no evidence that court employees are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion. To the contrary, the Chief Clerk of the Justice Court testified at the suppression hearing that this type of error occurred once every three or four years.
Finally, and most important, there is no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule in these circumstances will have a significant effect on court employees responsible for informing the police that a warrant has been quashed. Because court clerks are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime, they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. The threat of exclusion of evidence could not be expected to deter such individuals from failing to inform police officials that a warrant had been quashed.
. . .
There is no indication that the arresting officer was not acting objectively reasonably when he relied upon the police computer record. Application of the Leon framework supports a categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of court employees.
Id. at 14-16 (internal citations omitted). The clear import of the Evans decision is that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable for errors committed by court personnel. The converse issue of whether the good-faith exception applies when police...
To continue reading
Request your trial