Title: Stanley v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Charles B. STANLEY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-639                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 4, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- abstract insufficient -- court would not
     consider issues not properly abstracted. -- An appellant's
     failure to abstract the order appealed from and other critical
     documents precludes the supreme court from considering issues
     concerning them. 

2.   Search & seizure -- Fourth Amendment challenge -- standing
     necessary. -- An appellant must have standing to challenge a
     search on Fourth Amendment grounds because the rights secured
     by the Fourth Amendment are personal in nature; whether an
     appellant has standing depends on whether he manifested a
     subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and
     whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as
     reasonable.

3.   Search & seizure -- automobile search -- legitimate
     expectation of privacy must be shown. -- A defendant has no
     standing to question the search of a vehicle owned by another
     person; in order to establish a legitimate expectation of
     privacy in an automobile owned by another person, a defendant
     must show that he gained possession of the vehicle from the
     owner or from someone who had authority to grant possession. 

4.   Search & seizure -- appellant was merely passenger in vehicle
     -- no standing to object to search of vehicle. -- Where it was
     undisputed that, at the time the search warrant was issued,
     appellant's mother owned the vehicle, and appellant was only
     a passenger when the vehicle was stopped by the officer,
     appellant had neither a property interest nor a possessory
     one; he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the
     vehicle; appellant failed to establish that he had standing to
     object to the vehicle search; appellant's conviction was
     affirmed. 


     Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; Russell Rogers, Judge;
affirmed.
     Alvin Schay, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly S. Terry, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Charles B. Stanley brings this appeal from his
conviction of theft of property and a sentence of forty years'
imprisonment.  His sole point for reversal is that the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.
     The pertinent facts began on December 30, 1992, when Officer
Bob Paxton stopped a red 1979 Ford Thunderbird vehicle for a
traffic violation in DeWitt.  Charles Stanley was a passenger, and
his brother, Lawrence Stanley, was the driver.  During the stop,
Paxton saw two large speakers in the back seat of the car, and he
also observed a yellow flashlight, boxes of tools, and other small
items.  Paxton, who had knowledge of some prior residential and
church burglaries involving stolen speakers and tools, sought a
warrant to search the vehicle after having it impounded. 
Apparently Paxton and Patrolman Jim Miller prepared an affidavit
and search warrant, and Miller appeared before the DeWitt Municipal
Judge.  The affidavit reflects that Patrolman Miller had been sworn
by the municipal judge, and Miller averred that the impounded 1979
Ford Thunderbird was owned by Elizabeth Ann Hill, and that it
concealed certain property.  Miller further said that the facts
tended to establish the grounds for issuance of a search warrant. 
It is this affidavit that Charles challenged below, and now on
appeal, as being deficient because it failed to provide any facts
to show reasonable cause existed for the issuance of a search
warrant.
     Charles's argument is meritless for two reasons.  First, he
has failed to abstract the order showing that the trial court
denied his motion to suppress.  An appellant's failure to abstract
the order appealed from and other critical documents precludes this
court from considering issues concerning them.  King v. State, 325
Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996).  
     Second, Charles had no standing to challenge the vehicle's
search because he had no property or possessory interest in the
1979 Ford Thunderbird.  An appellant must have standing to
challenge a search on Fourth Amendment grounds because the rights
secured by the Fourth Amendment are personal in nature.  Dixon v.
State, 327 Ark. 105, 937 S.W.2d 642 (1997) [citing Rakas v.
Illinios,