Scisney v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 605 S.W.2d 451,270 Ark. 610 |
| Parties | Phillip Eugene SCISNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 80-124. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. H. "Dub" Arnold, Arkadelphia, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Mary Davies Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On July 6, 1979, while driving on Interstate 30 near Arkadelphia, appellant was stopped by two troopers of the Arkansas State Police around 11:30 p. m. when they noted his license plate light was out and observed his vehicle weave several times across the center line. The troopers testified that both appellant and his passenger, Marshall Williams, smelled of alcohol and marijuana. After appellant performed very poorly on four dexterity sobriety tests given him by Trooper Jim Jenkins, he was placed in custody at the rear of his vehicle. About this same time, Williams was removed from the vehicle by Trooper Glen Owens, and he was also placed in custody at the rear of the vehicle. Trooper Jenkins testified that at this point he had every intention of placing appellant under arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but he had not yet done so. With both appellant and Williams in custody, and the vehicle within the exclusive control of the officers, Trooper Jenkins decided to look inside the vehicle for weapons. He did not then find a weapon, but he did find several hand-rolled cigarettes in two separate places in the vehicle which he suspected contained marijuana, and he proceeded to search the rest of the vehicle. The trooper removed the keys from the ignition and, without the consent of appellant, opened the trunk to inspect its contents. He discovered two suitcases which he later described as being "very old" and "secured by masking tape." After removing the masking tape, he opened the suitcases and found 27 bricks of what was later determined to be marijuana. At this point appellant was arrested, informed of his rights, and transported to the Clark County jail where he was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana from evidence, alleging that it had been seized in a warrantless and, thus, illegal search. A pretrial hearing was held on the motion and it was denied by the trial court without comment insofar as the record reflects. Appellant was tried before a jury on January 29, 1980, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and fined $10,000. Appellant brings this appeal, alleging as his sole point of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
The only issue on this appeal is whether the warrantless search of the suitcases found in the trunk of appellant's automobile was violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This court has upheld the warrantless search of a bank bag and a closed, but unlocked, briefcase, both discovered within the passenger compartment of an automobile. Berry v. State, 263 Ark. 446, 565 S.W.2d 418 (1978). We have also recently upheld the warrantless search of a purse found between the two front seats of an automobile. Daigger & Taylor v. State, 268 Ark. 249, 595 S.W.2d 653 (1980).
However, in Sanders v. State, 262 Ark. 595, 559 S.W.2d 704 (1977), aff'd 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), we held that the warrantless search of a suitcase removed from the trunk of a taxicab by police officers who reasonably believed it contained marijuana was nonetheless unconstitutional in the absence of any exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has also often held that, absent exigent circumstances, a lawful search of luggage may be performed only pursuant to a warrant, for "luggage is a common repository for one's personal effects and therefore is inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy." Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. State, CR
...42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). Appellants cite Burkett v. State, 271 Ark. 150, 607 S.W.2d 399 (1980), and Scisney v. State, 270 Ark. 610, 605 S.W.2d 451 (1980), where we held a warrantless search of wrapped parcels and suitcases was improper. But the distinguishing aspect is that......
-
Tillman v. State
...People v. Fitzpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 499, 346 N.Y.S.2d 793, 300 N.E.2d 139 (1973). This case is not related in any way to Scisney v. State, 270 Ark. 610, 605 S.W.2d 451 (1980), or Burkett v. State, 271 Ark. 150, 607 S.W.2d 399 (1980). In Scisney, the only issue was whether there was a violation......
-
McDaniel v. State, CA
...in Knowles v. Iowa, ---U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998), and the decision of our supreme court in Scisney v. State, 270 Ark. 610, 605 S.W.2d 451 (1980). In Knowles, the Supreme Court invalidated a warrantless search of a car after a police officer stopped a motorist and issu......
-
Green v. State
...States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) (footlocker in vehicle); and by this court in Scisney v. State, 270 Ark. 610, 605 S.W.2d 451 (1980) (battered old suitcase held together with tape). The State in turn argues that a passenger on a common carrier has no reas......