Davis V. State

• Decision Date: 09 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. CR 02-534.,CR 02-534.
• Citation: 94 S.W.3d 892,351 Ark. 406
• Parties: Lee Roy DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

94 S.W.3d 892

351 Ark. 406

Lee Roy DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas.

No. CR 02-534.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 9, 2003.

Katherine S. Street, Public Defender, El Dorado, for appellant.

Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

RAY THORNTON, Justice.

Appellant, Lee Roy Davis, entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charges of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class C felony, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a class Y felony. For these crimes, appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a crack pipe and cocaine that police officers discovered during a pat-down search as violative of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.1 and 3.4. In a 3-2-1 decision, the court of appeals reversed appellant's convictions, holding that the police lacked a reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged in illegal activity. Davis v. State, 77 Ark. App. 310, 74 S.W.3d 671 (2002) ("Davis I"). We granted the State's petition for review, and we affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress and reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

Because appellant does not raise the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, we will only provide a concise summary of the facts. Appellant and four other men stood in the yard of an abandoned house at an intersection in El Dorado known for drug activity. As two police officers, Lieutenant Billy White and Sergeant Brandon Ivy, on bicycle patrol rode past the house, they observed appellant and another man engage in an apparent hand-to-hand transaction. When appellant and the other man saw the police officers, they separated and walked away quickly. Based upon his suspicion that a transaction involving drugs might have occurred, Sergeant Ivy stopped appellant, who gave a fictitious name and birth date when asked for identification. Sergeant Ivy then relayed the information to the Arkansas Crime Information Center ("ACIC"), and the ACIC returned no record for such name and birth date.

Sergeant Ivy testified that, while it was a hot March day, appellant was sweating more profusely than was appropriate. According to the officer, appellant was fidgety, his legs were shaking, and he appeared as if he were going to run. When the officer requested appellant's consent to search, appellant asked if the officer had probable cause. Then appellant told the officer that he would "give you my sh** " as he reached for his back pocket. Sergeant Ivy grabbed his hand and told appellant that he would retrieve the item. He then pulled a crack pipe from appellant's pocket. The trial court denied appellant's motion for the suppression of this evidence.

Citing Jefferson v. State, 76 Ark.App. 300, 64 S.W.3d 791 (2002) and Stewart v. State, 332 Ark. 138, 964 S.W.2d 793 (1998), the court of appeals reversed appellant's convictions, holding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop appellant. Davis I, supra. The court further rejected the State's argument that the stop was justified under the factors listed in Ark.Code Ann. § 16-81-203 (1987).

For his sole allegation of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He makes a two-pronged argument. First, he argues that his behavior did not give rise to reasonable suspicion to justify a stop under Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, he contends that even if the stop was reasonable, the officers failed to comply with Rule 3.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure in conducting the search because they had no reason to believe that appellant was armed and dangerous. In its petition for review, the State argues that the court of appeals failed to apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test in concluding that the evidence should be suppressed.

Before we reach the merits of appellant's arguments, we take this opportunity to clarify our standard of review when we review a denial of a motion to suppress the evidence. Our standard of review for a trial court's action granting or denying motions to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search requires that we make an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances, giving respectful consideration to the findings of the trial judge. State v. Osborn, 263 Ark. 554, 566 S.W.2d 139 (1978). In Osborn, we stated:

[W]e have given considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge in the resolution of evidentiary conflicts. [Harris v. State, 244 Ark. 314, 425 S.W.2d 293 (1968).] We must defer to the superior position of the trial judge to pass upon the credibility of witnesses.

Whitmore v. State, 263 Ark. 419, 565 S.W.2d 733 [133] (1978).

Osborn, supra.

This standard of review is consistent with the requirements of Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), where the Supreme Court stated:

The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause. The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated."

* * *

We therefore hold that as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal. Having said this, we hasten to point out that a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.

* * *

In similar vein, our cases have recognized that a police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists... An appeals court should give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable.

Ornelas, supra (citations omitted). See also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

The holding in Ornelas, supra concluded that the appellate court must: (1) identify the historical facts known to the local law enforcement officers at the time of the stop or search, and (2) determine whether those historical facts would give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause. While the trial court's determination of historical facts involve a "clear error" standard, the determination whether those facts would give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause should give due weight to the inferences drawn from the trial judge and local police officers. This two-part inquiry requires a de novo review of mixed questions of law and fact. Id.

While this standard is consistent with Osborn, supra, we subsequently rephrased our standard in Ryan v. State, 303 Ark. 595, 798 S.W.2d 679 (1990), where we stated that "on appeal this court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the appellee." Id. (citing Holden v. State, 290 Ark. 458, 721 S.W.2d 614 (1986)). This standard did not arise out of cases involving the suppression of evidence from an allegedly unconstitutional stop, but rather stemmed from an analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

In Dix v. State, 290 Ark. 28, 715 S.W.2d 879 (1986), we stated:

Our burden on appeal is to decide whether the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.

Id. (citation omitted).

In a number of subsequent cases, we have stated this standard as "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State." Because our prior cases articulating this standard have been cases where "the light most favorable to the State" is substantially the same as a proper deference to the findings of the trial court, the use of this phrase has not resulted in any error in our prior cases. However, for clarification of our standard, we take this opportunity to express clearly the appropriate standard for review of a suppression challenge. Our standard is that we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court. Ornelas, supra.

Based upon this standard of review, we now proceed to the question whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop consistent with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." U.S. Const. amend. 4. The protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that before a law enforcement officer may detain and question an individual, he or she must have reasonable suspicion. The rule provides in pertinent part:

A law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he...