Vega v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 21 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 26 Ark.App. 172,762 S.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | Isidora Estevez VEGA, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 88-142. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
William H. Hodge, De Queen, for appellant.
J. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On the night of January 19, 1988, appellant and a person accompanying him were arrested without warrants as suspects of a burglary. The appellant's car was impounded and towed to a police facility where an inventory search was conducted. During this process, the officers discovered a quantity of controlled substances and other contraband in the trunk of the car. Appellant was charged and convicted of the crimes of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver and possessing paraphernalia used in the manufacture of such substances. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in not denying his motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of a search of his car because the search was made incident to a warrantless arrest for which no probable cause existed. We agree that the evidence should have been suppressed and reverse the conviction.
At the suppression hearing, police officers testified that in the course of the investigation of a burglary they discovered the two stolen articles, a rifle and videocassette recorder, under an abandoned building. They had no suspect for the burglary, but two officers staked out the building hoping to apprehend the burglar if he returned for the stolen property. Sheriff Sam Odell testified that at about 9:30 that evening he saw a car stop in front of the abandoned building, and that a passenger got out and leaned back in the car as if saying something to the driver. The suspect looked in both directions and then walked toward the abandoned building. The officer did not see him enter the building but assumed that he had because he lost sight of him for "two or three minutes" in the darkness of the porch. The officer then walked toward the building and, as the suspect reemerged from the darkness, placed him under arrest and handcuffed him. At about that same time, the officer observed the vehicle which had brought the suspect to the scene returning toward the building. He ordered it stopped and immediately placed the appellant, the driver of that vehicle, under arrest.
The officer testified that when the occupant of the car emerged from the building he had nothing in his hands and, in fact, his hands were in his pockets. There was no evidence that he had gone to the place under the building where the stolen goods were found or had in any way attempted to remove the goods. No stolen property was ever found in possession of either occupant of the car. The other officer on the stakeout did not observe any of these events, as he was at the rear of the building. However, as officer in charge of the investigation, he authorized the arrest of both individuals as "primary suspects" in the burglary then being investigated. Both officers testified that they made the arrests solely because the two persons were suspects in the burglary case and that they had no information other than that recited herein.
After appellant had been arrested, the officers made a "sweep search" of the vehicle for weapons and contraband but found nothing other than a coffee sack containing a sealed box under the front seat. The officers did not know what the sealed box contained. Appellant's vehicle was impounded and towed to the police facility, where its contents were inventoried. During that process, contraband was discovered in the trunk of the car. All of the evidence sought to be suppressed was found in the search incident to that arrest.
Rules 12.1 and 12.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a search for limited purposes of the person, property, and vehicle of a lawfully arrested person where the search is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest. Rule 12.6 authorizes the so-called "inventory search"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bell
...appellant was seen visiting co-defendant's apartment prior to the crime does not give rise to probable cause); Vega v. State, 26 Ark.App. 172, 175, 762 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1988)(stating the fact that appellant and his companion were seen near building where burglary had occurred merely gave rise t......
-
Mounts v. State
...sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense. Vega v. State, 26 Ark.App. 172, 762 S.W.2d 1 (1988). An officer's mere suspicion or even a "strong reason to suspect" that an offense was committed is not enough to establish proba......
-
Nesler v. State, CA CR06-359 (Ark. App. 4/4/2007)
...in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Bond v. State, 45 Ark. App. 177, 873 S.W.2d 569 (1994); Vega v. State, 26 Ark. App. 172, 762 S.W.2d 1 (1988). "Reasonable cause to believe" has been defined as a basis for belief in the existence of facts which, in view of the ci......
-
Candelaria v. State
...for good cause may entertain a motion to suppress filed within less than ten days. Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2 (2001); see Vega v. State, 26 Ark. App. 172, 762 S.W.2d 1 (1988). This court, in Cole v. State, held that when there is nothing in the abstract or the record showing that the trial court......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...evasive behavior; pat down yielded nothing, but police did second search, reaching into jacket pocket, and found drugs. • Vega v. State , 762 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). No probable cause where one defendant was arrested because he was present at abandoned building where stolen goods wer......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...evasive behavior; pat down yielded nothing, but police did second search, reaching into jacket pocket, and found drugs. Vega v. State , 762 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). No probable cause where one defendant was arrested because he was present at abandoned building where stolen goods wer......
-
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
...evasive behavior; pat down yielded nothing, but police did second search, reaching into jacket pocket, and found drugs. Vega v. State , 762 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). No probable cause where one defendant was arrested because he was present at abandoned building where stolen goods wer......
-
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
...evasive behavior; pat down yielded nothing, but police did second search, reaching into jacket pocket, and found drugs. Vega v. State , 762 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). No probable cause where one defendant was arrested because he was present at abandoned building where stolen goods wer......