Title: Byars v. State
Citation: 533 S.W.2d 175
Docket Number: CR75-145
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1976

533 S.W.2d 175 (1976) Danny Mack BYARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR75-145. Supreme Court of Arkansas. February 2, 1976. Rehearing Denied March 22, 1976. John Dale Thweatt, DeValls Bluff, James M. Thweatt, Hazen, for appellant. *176 Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. HARRIS, Chief Justice. Danny Byars, appellant herein, was charged with possessing marijuana with intent to sell and deliver, and a jury returned a verdict of guilty, fixing punishment at six years confinement in the Department of Correction, and a $5,000 fine. From the judgment so entered, Byars brings this appeal. Two issues are presented, the first being whether the affidavit, upon which a warrant was issued to search Byars' car, meets constitutional standards previously set out by United States Supreme Court decisions, and decisions of this court, and if such standards were not met, whether the search can be upheld on the ground that appellant consented thereto. Because of information obtained, hereinafter discussed, Trooper W. D. Davidson of the Arkansas State Police, assigned to Monroe County, accompanied by then Prosecuting Attorney Sam Weems and an area newspaperman, stopped Byars in his car at Main and Walnut Streets in Brinkley and took appellant into custody and drove him to the Brinkley jail where Byars was placed in a cell. Weems and the newspaperman remained at the scene of the arrest with the automobile. In the meantime, Captain James Neighbors of the State Police had arrived at the scene. While Byars was in the Brinkley jail, Davidson went to the Municipal Judge and requested a search warrant for appellant's car. The warrant was issued upon Davidson's affidavit, which reflects as follows: Davidson subsequently testified at a pretrial hearing that he gave the Municipal Judge no other information than that contained in the affidavit. After obtaining the warrant, Davidson returned to the police station, removed Byars from the jail and took him back to the scene, where appellant's car was still parked. The Brinkley Chief of Police, George Bethell, and a Brinkley policeman, Robert Gaddis, accompanied Davidson and Byars back to the scene. At this point, there is a slight conflict in the evidence. Bethell and Gaddis testified positively that the warrant was read to appellant, Gaddis stating that Weems read the warrant to Byars. Davidson said that Byars stated, "You don't need the warrant, it is in the car." At any rate, the three officers all testified that Byars at this point stated, in effect, that he did not want to "cause a show and embarrass his family," and that what the officers were looking for was in the trunk of the car. Weems testified that his recollection was that appellant told Davidson, "What you are looking for is in the trunk," immediately after the arrest, and before the warrant was obtained. Thereafter, everyone returned to the police station, where the officers opened the trunk of the car and seized 38 sealed packages of green vegetable matter and 2 partially filled plastic bags containing green vegetable matter and assorted pills. Subsequently, at trial, a chemist *177 from the State Department of Health testified that the vegetable matter tested positively as Cannabis Sativa L. Apparently because of the unavailability of witnesses, and because appellant challenged both the validity of the search warrant and the voluntariness of an in-custody statement, the trial court held five separate pretrial hearings. During these hearings, the officers testified as heretofore mentioned, and at the conclusion of the hearings, the trial court held that the search warrant was valid, and, in addition, that appellant had given his permission for the car to be searched. The court did exclude from evidence the in-custody statement. We think unquestionably, that under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and decisions of this court, the affidavit was insufficient to sustain the issuance of the search warrant. In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723, the court held that an affidavit based upon hearsay was insufficient to justify a search warrant, and this decision was expounded upon in the case of Spinelli v. U. S., 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637. The court stated that: The court concluded that the informant's tip was not sufficient to provide the basis for a finding of probable cause, and added: Our own decisions are to the same effect. In Walton and Fuller v. State, 245 Ark. 84, 431 S.W.2d 462 (where the affidavit contained more information than the one before us), the law applicable to affidavits based on hearsay was summarized as follows: Likewise, in Cockrell v. State, 256 Ark. 19, 505 S.W.2d 204, the requirements were further explained as follows: A recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit), handed down August 1, 1973, sets out succinctly the requirements for a valid search warrant and the reasons therefor. The court in U. S. v. Chavez, 5 Cir., 482 F.2d 1268, first referred to what had been said in Aguilar v. Texas, supra, to-wit: The court then stated: Let it be borne in mind that Trooper Davidson testified that, in acquiring the search warrant, he did not relate any facts to the Municipal Judge in addition to what was said in the affidavit. Indeed, to only orally mention additional facts would likewise have been insufficient, though prior to 1971, we had held that an affidavit could be supplemented by oral evidence before the judicial authority from whom the search warrant was being sought. However, in 1971, the General Assembly passed an act which is codified as Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-205 (Supp.1973), and which provides: We commented upon this act in Cockrell v. State, supra, stating It is thus apparent that the affidavit made by Trooper Davidson (a form filled in by the officer) was insufficient to support the issuance of a valid warrant. Why additional information was not included in the affidavit before being presented to the Municipal Judge is not shown, for according to subsequent testimony, there was ample evidence which could have been included in the affidavit, and which would have supported the issuance of a valid warrant. We refer to the testimony of Kenneth McKee, a supervisor in narcotics for the Criminal Investigation Division of the State Police. In the first pretrial hearing, McKee testified that he had concluded an investigation, based on information received and had located a supply of marijuana hidden in a shed in Brinkley. The officer stated that he had conducted a "field test" on the substance in the shed and had determined that it was marijuana, before the marijuana was ever picked up by appellant. He also testified that he staked out the shed, and on December 27, saw Byars place the contraband in the trunk of his car, and drive away. He described the car and gave the license number to Davidson who had already been alerted about the possibility of a narcotics arrest, and Davidson, as previously stated, stopped the automobile. Now, these events all occurred before the search warrant was obtained. Needless to say, if these facts, or even a substantial part of them, had been included in the affidavit, such affidavit would have been more than adequate,[1]i. e., the recitation of the facts, with the additional statement that such information was obtained from a police officer (instead of stating a "confidential source") would have answered the test. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684; United States v. Spach, 518 F.2d 866, 869 &amp; n. 1 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. DeCesaro, 502 F.2d 604 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Welebir, 498 F.2d 346 (4th Cir. 1974), and United States v. Various Gambling Devices, 478 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1973). Of course, the fact that later testimony before the Circuit Court established that there was ample evidence to obtain a search warrant does not change the insubstantiality of the affidavit, nor does the fact that the marijuana was found in the car validate the search. See Walton and Fuller v. State, supra; Cockrell v. State, supra; Mann v. City of Heber Springs, 239 Ark. 969, 395 S.W.2d 557. This brings us to the question of whether Byars gave a valid consent that his car be searched. In this connection, appellant relies upon Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797, where the United States Supreme Court said: We think the key statement is, "This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority," i. e., we do not take Bumper to mean that an accused can never be deemed to have consented to a search, if a search warrant had been obtained and the accused was aware of that fact. Rather, we consider that this question is determined by the particular facts present when the consent is purportedly given. In Hoover v. Beto, 467 F.2d 516 (1972), the United States Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) held that whether consent to search has been given is a question of fact. There, the officer went to the home of Hoover, knocked, and Hoover answered the door. The officer advised that he had a warrant to search the house; thereupon, Hoover replied, "that the search warrant was unnecessary, for (him) to come on in his house and look wherever (he) pleased." The officer had the warrant in his hand when he knocked on the door, and Hoover asked to see it after the officer went inside. The state trial court upheld the search on the ground that Hoover had advised that it was not necessary to have a search warrant and invited the officer to search the residence, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently affirmed, finding that there was an invitation to search. Thereafter, Hoover applied to the Federal District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which application was denied, and Hoover appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of that court reversed the district court, but on rehearing en banc, the court held that the consent was not involuntary because of the use of the warrant. "In Stanford, after the officer told defendant that he had a warrant, defendant stated that it was not necessary to have a warrant and `to go any place in the hotel (he) wanted to go.' Id. at 519. The Court held that the defendant had consented to the search and that the consent operated as a waiver of the right to object to the validity of the warrant. That was the situation here, and it is apparent the circumstances differ from those in Bumper." It was then pointed out that in Bumper, the party in question was a sixty-six year-old widow of limited education, who was not a suspect at the time, nor an eventual defendant in the criminal proceedings, and while Hoover was a lawyer experienced in criminal law, this fact was not necessarily a controlling distinction, but only a circumstance. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. 409 U.S. 1086, 93 S. Ct. 703, 34 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1972). The same approach was taken by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Earls v. State, 496 S.W.2d 464. There, also, a search warrant which had been obtained was held to be invalid, but the court held that Earls *181 validly consented to the search. The facts, pertinent to this discussion, are set out in the opinion as follows: The court then stated: "We are asked, therefore, to examine and interpret the Bumper opinion in order to determine its requirements. We do not believe that the Bumper opinion is a blanket prohibition that no consent can ever be given where an invalid warrant is involved. Such a holding ignores the realities of life and denies the long standing principle that the existence and voluntariness of a consent to search and seizure is a question of fact to be decided in the light of attendant circumstances. White v. United States, 444 F.2d 724 (10th Cir. 1971). The creation of such a legal fiction is inherent with danger. * * * The holding in Hoover v. Beto, supra, was then discussed, and the court continued: Petition by Earls for Federal habeas corpus relief was denied by the district court on May 22, 1974, that court holding that it is the intent of the person giving the consent to search, and not the intention of those conducting the search, which controls in determining whether the consent was voluntarily given. What are the facts in the case before us? First, three officers all testified that Byars stated, in effect, that he did not want to "cause a show and embarrass his family"; that what the officers were looking for was in the trunk of the car. The prosecutor was of the opinion that this statement was made even before the warrant was obtained, but at any rate, the statement made by the appellant appears to have been spontaneous and voluntarily given. The record reflects that Byars, son of an Exxon distributor in Cotton Plant, graduated from high school and attended Henderson State University for two and one-half years, playing on the football team. It is thus apparent that appellant was not ignorant, or unlearned, and was apparently possessed of sufficient intelligence to make his own determination that the officers could search the automobile. His statement that he didn't desire to "embarrass" his family appears to be in accord with his background. Let another important fact be remembered, viz., that there was never, in chambers or otherwise, any denial of the statements made, nor any contrary evidence presented.[2]*183 We have concluded that Byars' consent to the search of the car was voluntarily given.[3] It is also urged that there was insufficient evidence before the jury to sustain a conviction of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell and deliver. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 82-2617(d) (Supp.1973) provides: The subsequent amount referred to in the subsection is one ounce of marijuana, and the evidence here reflects that the officers recovered thirty-six pounds of marijuana from the car. Don Wise, a chemist with the Arkansas Department of Health and Drug Abuse Laboratory, testified that he ran a test on 10% of the confiscated vegetable matter (standard procedure), as earlier pointed out, and it tested positively as Cannabis Sativa L. Appellant, in his brief, contends, however, that the evidence was insufficient for conviction, stating: Of course, the testimony of McKee in chambers, heretofore summarized, would have quickly answered this argument, but neither this officer, nor the city officers, testified before the jury. Nor did Davidson mention the statement of Byars relative to not desiring to embarrass his family, and that what the officers were looking for was in the trunk. Be that as it may, Davidson testified relative to stopping the car, and the finding of the marijuana, and Officer Neighbors testified relative to the chain of custody after the confiscation from the officers to the Department of Health and Drug Abuse Laboratory. While we have no drug cases on the particular argument made by appellant, other jurisdictions provide much authority on the question. In Eason v. United States, 281 F.2d 818 (9th Cir.), where two defendants denied knowledge of the presence of marijuana found hidden in the car, the court held that a jury could properly infer from the presence of narcotics in the car that the defendants had knowledge of such presence. The argument that some stranger could have secreted the marijuana in the car, was rejected, the court noting that while this could have happened, its possibility was not "so patently reasonable as to warrant our ruling as a matter of law that an inference of knowledge was not available from the facts of the case." This approach has been affirmed subsequently many times. In U. S. v. Dixon, 460 F.2d 309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 864, 93 S. Ct. 157, 34 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1972), that court decided a case quite similar to the instant litigation. Dixon attempted to drive his car across the Mexican border, but a search revealed thirty pounds of marijuana hidden in the trunk and under the rear seat. Dixon argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he knew that marijuana was in the car. However, the court affirmed the conviction, stating: See also People v. Chavez, 182 Colo. 216, 511 P.2d 883 and State v. Potts, 1 Wash. App. 614, 464 P.2d 742. Here, it is undisputed that the appellant had control of the automobile in which the marijuana was hiddenhe was its driver and sole occupant. The amount of the drugs recoveredplus its form, i. e., individual "bricks" that would facilitate sale or delivery, in addition to what has already been pointed out, certainly was substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury. Finally, it is contended that the verdict of the jury was ambiguous and not corrected before adjournment. When the jury retired, the court gave the following form for verdict: In returning the verdict, the jury had written in the first blank the figure "6" and the second blank "$5,000.00." Appellant points out that the verdict form uses the word "or" instead of "and." When this verdict, signed by the foreman, was read, the court immediately inquired if the jury meant both the 6 years confinement and the $5,000.00 fine, and the foreman answered in the affirmative. The court further inquired of all members of the jury if this was the verdict, and all agreed. We find no error. Affirmed. FOGLEMAN, J., concurs. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, BYRD and HOLT, JJ., dissent. FOGLEMAN, Justice (concurring). I agree with the majority and with Mr. Justice Byrd that the search warrant was invalid. I agree with Mr. Justice Byrd that the state did not meet its burden of proving consent. I would add that the search was not permissible as incident to the arrest. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970). I still would hold that the search was not unreasonable. In spite of the fact that the affidavit for the search warrant failed to properly establish probable cause for a search, there was certainly probable cause for Byars' arrest. By the same token, there was probable cause to search the automobile driven by him for contraband, marijuana. Ever since Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925), it has been recognized that automobiles may be searched without a warrant in circumstances which would not justify the search of a house or office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. The United States Supreme Court said this in Carroll: In Chambers the precepts of Carroll were applied. In speaking of Carroll, the Chambers court said: In Chambers it was held that given probable cause for a search, an intense warrantless search of the automobile after it had been removed to the police station was not unreasonable. A reading of Chambers in the light of Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 96 S. Ct. 304, 46 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1975), makes the search of an automobile reasonable if there is probable cause, and the fact that an automobile, rather than a house or an office is searched, furnishes exigent circumstances. In White consent was refused, and the automobile had been taken to the police station by a police officer. The search was not conducted until about 45 minutes after it had been brought to the station house, during which time the officers were questioning the arrested driver of the automobile. In this case the officers took Byars into custody, put him in jail, obtained an invalid warrant, then took Byars back to the automobile, and after he made the statements set out in full in the dissenting opinion, seized the automobile and returned both Byars and the automobile to the police station where the search was conducted. It seems to me that the seizure was justified under Chambers and that the search for contraband at the police station without a warrant can be justified. Even where contraband is not involved, we have sustained warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause. See Anderson v. State, 256 Ark. 912, 511 S.W.2d 151; Roach v. State, 255 Ark. 773, 503 S.W.2d 467; Cox v. State, 254 Ark. 1, 491 S.W.2d 802; Moore v. State, 244 Ark. 1197, 429 S.W.2d 122. I should note that Steel v. State, 248 Ark. 159, 450 S.W.2d 545, was decided on the basis of validity of a search incident to an arrest, applying Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685, reh. den., 396 U.S. 869, 90 S. Ct. 36, 24 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1969). This was before the decision in Chambers. In a footnote to that opinion it was pointed out that nothing in Chimel purported to modify or affect the rationale of Carroll. Steel probably would have been decided differently after Chambers, or if the searches in Steel had been considered in the light of anything except a search incident to an arrest and a search with a warrant. I would affirm the judgment. BYRD, Justice (dissenting). I agree with the majority the search warrant is invalid. I disagree with the majority opinion that the evidence here is sufficient to show that appellant Byars consented to the search of his automobile. The facts in the case before us show that appellant Byars was first arrested on the streets in the city of Brinkley and then placed in jail. After the officers obtained a search warrant, they removed appellant from the jail and took him to his automobile where the search warrant was served. On cross-examination of Sergeant Davidson at pages 169-170 of the record, the following occurred: Sergeant Davidson made a written return on the search warrant, stating as follows: To distinguish this case from our opinion in Hock v. State, 259 Ark. ___, 531 S.W.2d 701 (1976), the majority relies upon Hoover v. Beto, 467 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1972) and Earls v. State, 496 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn.1973). There is a substantial difference between those cases and this case. In both of those cases, the accused was at home and not under arrest when the search was made. Furthermore, both of those cases involved an invitation to search instead of an acquiescence to lawful authority. Hoover v. Beto, supra, involved the conviction of an experienced Texas criminal lawyer and former mayor of the City of Pasadena, Texas, as an accomplice to the crime of robbery. When the officer knocked at Hoover's home and told him that he had a search warrant, Hoover told the officer, "that the search warrant was unnecessary, for [him] to come on in his house and look wherever [he] pleased." Hoover acknowledged on appeal that the words he spoke constituted an invitation to the police to enter and search but argued: The Fifth Circuit after recognizing the sufficiently clear and positive evidence test then held as follows: Consequently, as can be seen in Hoover v. Beto, supra, relied upon by the majority, there was an "invitation" to search by a seasoned and experienced criminal lawyer. The next opinion upon which the majority relies is Earls v. State, 496 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn.1973). There the defendant was not under arrest, and when the sheriff handed him a copy of the warrant and began reading the original, Earls threw his copy to the ground and stated: "You needn't to have brought a search warrant. You gentlemen are welcome to search anywhere on my premises you want to search and take anything you find." The Tennessee Supreme Court, after stating a preference for Justice Black's dissent in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968), stated its understanding of the Bumper decision to be as follows, to-wit: The Tennessee Court, after reviewing the conduct of Earls and his statement when the sheriff started reading the original warrant, then concluded: In Hock v. State, 259 Ark. ___, 531 S.W.2d 701 (January 12, 1976), the issue was whether the State had sustained its burden of showing consent. We there pointed out: The Supreme Court, in Bumper, supra, cited Judd v. United States, 89 U.S.App. D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649 (1951), favorably as indicating the extent of the burden placed upon the State to show consent. With reference to searches and seizures made without a proper warrant, the Court in Judd v. United States, supra said: In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973), the issue before the Court was what the prosecution must prove to demonstrate that a consent, given by one not under arrest, was voluntary. In holding that voluntary did not require a Miranda warning, the Court, with respect to "coercion" or "consent", stated: The problem of reconciling the recognized legitimacy of consent searches with the requirement that they be free from any aspect of official coercion cannot be resolved by any infallible touchstone. To approve such searches without the most careful scrutiny would sanction the possibility of official coercion; to place artificial restrictions upon such searches would jeopardize their basic validity. Just as was true with confessions, the requirement of a `voluntary' consent reflects a fair accommodation of the constitutional requirements involved. In examining all the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search was coerced, account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents. Those searches that are the product of police coercion can thus be filtered out without undermining the continuing validity of consent searches. In sum, there is no reason for us to depart in the area of consent searches, from the traditional definition of `voluntariness.'" In McCreary v. Sigler, 406 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir. 1969), one Officer Parker arrived at an apartment with an invalid search warrant. When one Mr. Bradbury, the occupant, was advised that the officers had a search warrant, he got up to get a drink and then said: "You don't need it. Go ahead and search. I pay the rent here." In holding the warrant invalid, the Eighth Circuit (Matthes, Gibson and Lay) stated: "Upon reconsideration of Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968), decided subsequent to the district court's findings of `consent' below, we hold that any consent given by Bradbury must be viewed as `impliedly coerced.' The Supreme Court has expressly held that `"consent" * * given only after the official conducting the search has asserted he possesses a warrant' is not a valid consent when the only showing is `no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.' Id. at 548-549, 88 S. Ct. at 1792. The facts supporting `voluntary consent' are much stronger in Bumper than here. See 391 U.S. at 547 n. 8, 88 S. Ct. 1788 n. 8. The Supreme Court, however, has made clear: See also Overton v. New York, 393 U.S. 85, 89 S. Ct. 252, 21 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1968) (per curiam). I submit that whether you follow the line of authorities cited by the majority or the ruling of the Eighth Circuit in McCreary v. Sigler, 406 F.2d 1264 (1969), there is not sufficient proof in this record to sustain the State's burden of proving a consent to searchi. e. by clear and positive evidence. *190 For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent. HOLT, J., joins in this dissent. [1] It may be that Davidson was not advised of these facts. [2] In Hock v. State, 259 Ark.___, 531 S.W.2d 701 (1976), Hock vigorously denied that he had given his consent for a search. [3] Of course, the fact that Byars was in custody does not invalidate his consent. It is only a circumstance to be considered. United States v. Watson, ___ U.S. ___, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1976); United States v. Jones, 475 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1973) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 841, 94 S. Ct. 96, 38 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1974).