Opinion ID: 2428009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stop and arrest

Text: Crail argues the search was the result of an unlawful, warrantless arrest, thus the contraband seized as a result should have been suppressed. His argument is that the smell of marijuana was not probable cause to make an arrest. In reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we make an independent examination based upon the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Ryan v. State, 303 Ark. 595, 798 S.W.2d 679 (1990). The car in which Crail was riding was stopped at a checkpoint which had been set up to stop all vehicles to examine for intoxicated drivers. The checkpoint detention was not a constitutional violation. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). When Black asked Crail to come out of the car, and Crail would not identify the objects in his hand but ate them, Black had reasonable cause to suspect the substance was marijuana. Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge are sufficient to permit a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested, Roderick v. State, 288 Ark. 360, 705 S.W.2d 433 (1986). There thus seems to be little merit in the assertion that there was not reasonable cause for the detention and search. Arkansas R.Crim.P. 4.1(a)(iii) provides a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed any violation of the law in the officer's presence. Misdemeanor possession is a violation of the law, and the action took place in the presence of the officer. Rule 4.1(c) provides an arrest shall not be deemed to have been made on insufficient cause ... solely on the ground that the officer ... is unable to determine the particular offense which may have been committed. Even if the officer didn't know exactly what Crail ate, he had reasonable cause to suspect it was a prohibited substance. There was cause for the detention, arrest, and search.