Case Title: State v. Hart

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR97-168

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Arkansas v. Frankie E. HART

CR 97-168                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 25, 1997


1.   Criminal procedure -- issue presented by State's appeal
     involved mixed question of law and fact -- appeal under Ark.
     R. Crim. P. 36.10 not accepted by supreme court. -- Where the
     sole point raised in the State's appeal was whether the
     circuit court erred by not applying the good-faith exception
     to the exclusionary rule, the issue presented involved a mixed
     question of law and fact; an interpretation of rules with
     widespread ramifications was not at issue; where the trial
     court acts within its discretion after making an evidentiary
     decision based on the facts on hand or even a mixed question
     of law and fact, the supreme court will not accept an appeal
     under Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.10 (now Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 3(c).

2.   Appeal & error -- when appeals by State accepted -- correct
     and uniform administration of justice not in issue. -- The
     supreme court will only accept appeals by the State when their
     holding would establish a precedent that would be important to
     the correct and uniform administration of justice; because the
     circuit court's decision required the review of unique
     circumstances to decide a mixed question of law and fact, the
     correct and uniform administration of justice was not at
     issue; the appeal was dismissed.

     Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; John S. Patterson, Judge;
appeal dismissed.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellant.
     Dunham & Faught, P.A., by:  James Dunham, for appellee.

     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     The State brings this interlocutory appeal under Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 3(c), asserting the
ground that the circuit court improperly suppressed items seized from appellee Frankie E. Hartþs
home.  The Attorney General contends, as it is required to do under the rule, that the correct and
uniform administration of justice requires our review of the circuit courtþs ruling.  Because we
disagree that the correct and uniform administration of justice is at issue here, we dismiss the
appeal.
     The undisputed facts in this case are as follows.  On April 17, 1995, at approximately
9:15 a.m., Arkansas State Trooper Bill Glover was driving west on Highway 64 near London,
Arkansas, when a white Corvette bearing Oklahoma tags pulled out in front of him.  Having seen
the vehicle several times in the area for over one month, Trooper Glover decided to follow it for
the purpose of checking to see that its tags were properly registered.  When the officer observed
the vehicle make a sudden right turn into a parking lot without activating a signal, he approached
the driver and asked for his license.  Shortly after Trooper Glover identified the driver as
appellee, Trooper James Stephens arrived at the scene with his narcotics dog.  Despite the fact
that both troopers repeatedly instructed appellee to keep his hands out of his pockets, he refused
to do so.  Trooper Stephens eventually requested appellee to empty his pockets.  When appellee
failed to completely empty one of his pockets, Trooper Stephens felt the pocket and removed a
leather pouch containing a vial of what was later identified as methamphetamine.  Appellee was
placed under arrest.  His car was searched, but no other narcotics were found.
     Later that same day, the troopers contacted Officer Stephen Brown, coordinator of the
Fifth Judicial Drug Task Force, who had information that appellee was dealing in narcotics. 
Officer Brown prepared a sworn affidavit and obtained a search warrant for appelleeþs residence
from Judge Benny E. Swindell.  Officer Brown and others executed the warrant later in the
afternoon and discovered over three pounds of methamphetamine, various items of drug
paraphernalia, marijuana, and various firearms.  Appellee was charged with improper use of tags,
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, simultaneous possession of a controlled
substance and firearms, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  Appellee filed a pretrial motion
to suppress the items seized from his residence.  Following a hearing, the circuit court ruled that
the search warrant was invalid because Officer Brownþs affidavit contained conclusory allegations
as well as references to confidential and anonymous sources with no factual indications of
reliability.  In ruling that the evidence seized from appelleeþs home would be suppressed, the
circuit court refused to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in
United States v. Leon,