Hudson v. State, CR

Decision Date21 March 1994
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
Citation316 Ark. 360,872 S.W.2d 68
PartiesMichael D. HUDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 93-1132.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Steven D. Oliver, Hot Springs, for appellant.

J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Michael D. Hudson, was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of thirty-two years for the offenses, committed as a habitual offender, of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He raises a single point for reversal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an unlawful traffic stop and arrest. Finding no merit in his claim, we accordingly affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

During the first week of February 1993, Officer Richard W. Wiggins of the South Central Drug Task Force received three reports from confidential informants on activities of the appellant, Michael D. Hudson. On February 1, 1993, an informant advised Officer Wiggins that Hudson had been seen with a quantity of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) and a clear plastic bag of marijuana in his possession at the Arkadelphia house shared by Hudson and Kathleen Freeman. An informant notified Officer Wiggins on February 4, 1993, that Hudson had sold the informant a quantity of LSD, the identification of which was presumptively confirmed through a field test.

On February 6, 1993, Officer Wiggins received information from a confidential informant that the informant had just observed Hudson and another person at the Arkadelphia residence of David Pennington in possession of marijuana and in the act of processing and packaging the controlled substance for sale in "quarter bags." The informant also advised the Task Force officer that Hudson was in possession of cocaine and that he would be traveling in a two-door 1977 Buick Electra. Approximately one hour later, Officer Wiggins and other law enforcement officers, acting upon the information received, stopped an orange 1977 Buick Electra in Arkadelphia and immediately arrested Hudson.

Four bags of marijuana were found stuffed inside the waistband of Hudson's pants, and a cigarette package in Hudson's jacket pocket, containing two hand-rolled cigarettes which proved to be marijuana, was also seized. In the vehicle, officers discovered a set of hand scales, a box of zip-lock plastic bags, a package of cigarette rolling papers, a box of .38-caliber ammunition, and a box of .25 caliber ammunition.

Hudson was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Repl.1993), possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-403 (Repl.1993), and being a habitual offender with seven prior convictions in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-501 (Repl.1993). On May 12, 1993, Hudson filed a motion to suppress evidence taken from his person and from the car he was driving, a motion to suppress evidence seized at Freeman's residence, a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to arrest, and a motion to compel disclosure of confidential informant. The circuit court denied all the motions, and Hudson was tried by a jury and convicted on all charges on June 18, 1993.

On appeal, Hudson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of his arrest following an illegal "traffic stop." He asserts that the first motion to suppress was cast in the form of a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to arrest and that the second motion was predicated on the lack of probable cause for a warrantless search following the "traffic stop."

Hudson focuses upon the criteria for warrantless arrests and vehicular searches set forth in Ark.R.Crim.P. 4.1 and 14.1. Under Ark.R.Crim.P. 4.1:

(a) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed

(i) a felony....

Rule 14.1 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) An officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a moving or readily movable vehicle is or contains things subject to seizure may, without a search warrant, stop, detain, and search the vehicle and may seize things subject to seizure discovered in the course where the vehicle is:

(i) on a public way or waters or other area open to the public....

The same standards govern reasonable (that is to say, probable) cause determinations, whether the question is the validity of an arrest or the validity of a search and seizure. Perez v. State, 260 Ark. 438, 541 S.W.2d 915 (1976). Because the arrest and the search in the present case were based on the same information supplied to the South Central Drug Task Force, we consider the two occurrences together.

The principal law enforcement officer involved in the arrest was Richard Wiggins, who testified at the hearing held on the motion to suppress evidence that he had received information from two confidential informants that Hudson "had been dealing drugs in Arkadelphia." On February 6, 1993, the day of the arrest, one of the informants notified Officer Wiggins that Hudson had been processing and packaging marijuana at another person's house and that he had cocaine in his possession and was traveling in a 1977 Buick Electra in the Arkadelphia area. The informant identified the vehicle's tag number.

Officer Wiggins stated that the informant who had furnished the information on February 6 had previously provided him with information that resulted in at least a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Echols v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1996
    ...when they executed the warrant. On such proof we cannot say that the ruling of the trial court was clearly in error. Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 872 S.W.2d 68 (1994). Both Echols and Baldwin contend that the trial court erred in ruling that Jessie Misskelley was a reliable informant. Aga......
  • Henderson v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1995
    ...with intent to deliver and drug paraphernalia where the defendant was a habitual offender with 7 prior convictions. Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 872 S.W.2d 68 (1994). • Affirmed a sentence of 19 years for 4 offenses which included continuing criminal enterprise, public servant bribery, de......
  • Medlock v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2002
    ...v. State, 347 Ark. 142, 153, 60 S.W.3d 464, 472 (2001) (citing Burris v. State, 330 Ark. 66, 954 S.W.2d 209 (1997); Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 872 S.W.2d 68 (1994)). In assessing the existence of probable cause, our review is liberal rather than strict. Id. (citing Brunson v. State, 327......
  • Laime & Dodd v. State of Arkansas
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2001
    ...of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed by the person suspected. Burris v. State, supra; Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 872 S.W.2d 68 (1994). In assessing the existence of probable cause, our review is liberal rather than strict. Brunson v. State, 327 Ark. 567, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT