Opinion ID: 4537938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HBO Footage

Text: For his first point on appeal, Harmon argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to order the State to obtain the HBO video footage of the search of Harmon’s home and to identify the filmmakers present. Harmon acknowledges that the State does not have an affirmative duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to produce evidence it does not have. But he contends that under Rules 17.1 and 17.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, the State was obligated to obtain the footage and the identities of the filmmakers. Rule 17.1(c) provides in relevant part that “[t]he prosecuting attorney shall, upon timely request, disclose and permit inspection, testing, 4 copying, and photocopying of any relevant material regarding (i) any specific searches and seizures.” Rule 17.4(a) provides that “[t]he court in its discretion may require disclosure to defense counsel of other relevant material and information upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense.” In arguing that it was the State’s responsibility to provide the video, Harmon contends that the HBO filmmakers were state actors or agents of the state because they were present at the behest of law enforcement. We review rulings regarding alleged violations of discovery rules for abuse of discretion. Hicks v. State, 340 Ark. 605, 612, 12 S.W.3d 219, 223 (2000). Harmon relies on Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999), in which the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant. Harmon argues that because the filmmakers were state actors or agents, the State had an obligation to obtain the video and identify who was present at the search. Harmon does not provide convincing authority to support his contention that the filmmakers were state actors or state agents. The filmmakers were more than mere bystanders; they were present at the invitation of law enforcement. But that does not make them state actors or agents. Bakr and Sowell testified that the filmmakers did not participate in the search. Wilson is not on point. Any possible Fourth Amendment claim Harmon may have against law enforcement under Wilson stemming from the presence of 5 the filmmakers at the search is distinct from the State’s discovery obligation to obtain the video and identify all individuals present. Harmon cites a series of cases for the proposition that information held by the police is imputed to the prosecution. In Williams v. State, 267 Ark. 527, 593 S.W.2d 8 (1980), the defendant made an incriminating statement in the presence of a police officer. The prosecutor learned of the statement the evening before trial but did not disclose it to the defense until after voir dire the next day. We concluded that because the defendant made the statement in the police officer’s presence, the officer’s knowledge of the statement was imputed to the prosecution. Id. at 531, 593 S.W.2d at 10. Likewise, in Lewis v. State, the State called a witness whom the prosecutor had learned about the morning of the trial. Because the witness had given crucial information to the police, we concluded that information was imputed to the prosecution. 286 Ark. 372, 375, 691 S.W. 2d 864, 865 (1985). Harman argues that because law enforcement knew about the presence of filmmakers during the search, that knowledge is imputed to the prosecution, which had a duty to disclose the footage under Rule 17. We disagree. While we recognize that information held by the police is imputed to the prosecution, in this case the police did not possess the footage and did not take statements from the filmmakers. The State did not call the filmmakers as witnesses or introduce the footage into evidence. Plus, the prosecutor disclosed the existence of the footage and contact information for the filmmakers more than a year before trial. Harmon also argues that the presence of the filmmakers at the search of his home is 6 analogous to the presence of witnesses at the taking of a custodial statement. We have held that the State must produce all witnesses present at the taking of a custodial statement or explain their absence, Foreman v. State, 328 Ark. 583, 590, 945 S.W.2d 926, 930 (1997). But the taking of a custodial statement is not the same as the search of a home. And the State did disclose the presence of the filmmakers. Under these circumstances, we decline to extend our holding in Foreman to include witnesses present at the execution of a search warrant who did not participate in the search. The State cites Barrow v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 589, 377 S.W.3d 481, to support its contention that Rule 17 does not require it to produce the video. In Barrow, there was evidence of the victims’ medical treatment at area hospitals that the State did not disclose to the defense. The court of appeals held that “[b]ecause the medical facilities are not lawenforcement agencies, the prosecutor had no obligation to obtain the records under Rule 17.3. In the absence of a showing . . . that the State had access to the records, no discovery violation occurred.” Id. at 15, 377 S.W.3d at 491. According to the State, the evidence held by the filmmakers is akin to evidence held by the hospitals in Barrow. We agree. The filmmakers were not law-enforcement officers, nor were they acting as state agents. Because the State did not possess the video, we find no discovery violation. It is undisputed that neither the police nor the prosecution had the video. As soon as she found out about the presence of the filmmakers, the prosecutor informed defense counsel and provided contact information for one of the filmmakers. She also attempted to get the video herself and later provided additional contact information for relevant individuals at 7 HBO and the DEA more than a year before trial. The question is not whether the State could have done more to get the video; it is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the State to do so. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order the State to obtain the video.