Opinion ID: 1781165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consent to entry.

Text: Next, we turn to Humphrey's contention that the officers' entry into his grandmother's house was nonconsensual. If the officers did not have valid consent, then there must have been exigent circumstances justifying the entry. Payton v. New York, supra . We have stated that consent to a warrantless search of one's home must be given freely and voluntarily. Guzman v. State, 283 Ark. 112, 672 S.W.2d 656 (1984). The State has a heavy burden to prove by clear and positive testimony that consent was freely and voluntarily given. Id. On appeal, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances to determine if the State has met its burden. Id. At the suppression hearing, Dinwiddie testified that he went to Richardson's residence with Bozarth and Caperton. When they arrived, Dinwiddie knocked on the door and Richardson answered. He testified that he told her they needed to talk with Marko. When asked what was [Richardson's] response? Dinwiddie answered: She said okay, that he was in bed asleep and she went in, we all went in, and she woke him up and she wanted to know what was the problem and we told her what we had heard and we needed to take him down to the office and talk with him. Caperton corroborated this version of events: We knocked at the door and his grandmother came to the door. I believe Officer Dinwiddie was the one that said that we wanted to know if Marko was at home and told her that there had been a shooting and that we needed to talk to him. She let us in the house and took us to Marko's room where he was laying in the bed and we got him up and got him dressed and carried him to the county jail. Additionally, Bozarth testified to this sequence of events: We approached the door, knocked, and Marko's grandmother answered the door and we asked her if Marko was at home and she said yes, he was. He'd been there for a little while. We asked if we could speak with him and she wanted to know what the problem was and we advised her that we had suspected Marko had been involved in a shooting incident and we needed to talk with him. So she let us in the house and she walked to the bedroom where Marko was asleep so we woke Marko up and at that time we took Marko into custody. Bozarth admitted that they did not inform Richardson that they did not have an arrest warrant for Humphrey, or that she did not have to let them in. Richardson testified that the officers knocked on the door and that she answered. They then announced that they were looking for Marko. Richardson further testified to the following: Q: Was there any more conversation before they entered the house? A: No. Q: Did you invite them in? A: Well, I just opened the door and they just come in. Q: You didn't say `Come on in'? A: No, I just opened the door. Q: Did you believe at that time that you were free to tell themto refuse them entry? A: I didn't know. Q: Did any of them tell you they didn't have a warrant? A: If they had one I didn't see it. Q: Did any of them tell you that you were free not to let them in if you didn't want to? A: No. She further testified that she went into Humphrey's room before Officer Dinwiddie in order to get Humphrey. The officers' testimony constitutes clear and positive evidence that Richardson voluntarily let them in her house after they informed her that they were there to talk to Humphrey. The State correctly notes that an officer is not required to inform a person that consent may be withdrawn; the failure to so advise an individual does not invalidate consent. See Grant v. State, 267 Ark. 50, 589 S.W.2d 11 (1979). At most, Richardson's arguably conflicting testimony simply required a credibility determination by the trial court. In such cases, we defer to the trial court's superior position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. See Hamm v. State, 296 Ark. 385, 757 S.W.2d 932 (1988); Jones v. State, 11 Ark.App. 129, 668 S.W.2d 30 (1984). Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court was clearly erroneous in determining Richardson consented to the officers' entry into her home.