Opinion ID: 6111057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized from King's Home

Text: King next argues that the circuit court erred in failing to suppress evidence seized from King's home pursuant to a search warrant. These items include a surveillance DVR containing video of activities at his house and photographs taken by police inside and outside his home. This evidence was admitted at trial. 1 King claims the warrant did not present sufficient grounds for the search and seizure of the evidence. In particular, he claims that the affidavit for the warrant prepared by Detective O'Kelley was insufficient because it did not provide any basis for the veracity of Witness 1. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.1(b) states that if an affidavit or testimony is based in whole or in part on hearsay, the affiant or witness shall set forth particular facts bearing on the informant's reliability and shall disclose, as far as practicable, the means by which the information was obtained. However, failure to establish the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons providing information is not a fatal defect if the affidavit viewed as a whole provides a substantial basis for a finding of reasonable cause to believe that things subject to seizure will be found in a particular place. Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.1(b) ; see also Wagner v. State , 2010 Ark. 389 , 368 S.W.3d 914 . The task of the judge issuing a warrant is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Brenk v. State , 311 Ark. 579 , 588, 847 S.W.2d 1 , 6 (1993) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ). In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we make an independent examination of the issue based on the totality of the circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Stanton v. State , 344 Ark. 589 , 42 S.W.3d 474 (2001). We reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. In this case, Detective O'Kelley's affidavit states that Witness 1, who was later identified as David Kincade, had contacted investigators and informed them that King had confessed to him that he killed Price. The affidavit identifies King as the individual already charged with the capital murder of Price. According to Witness 1, King stated he killed Price because if his wife found out that Price was pregnant with his child, his wife would divorce him, and he would lose everything. Witness 1 also detailed how King told him that he had unplugged the surveillance cameras at his house the week before the murder and that on the night of the murder he went  out of his back door and ran across a field to the main road where someone picked him up and drove him to Price's house. This portion of Detective O'Kelley's affidavit was based on hearsay; therefore, it should have stated, but did not state, particular facts bearing on Witness 1's reliability. Ark. R. Crim. P. 13(b). However, considering the affidavit as a whole, there was substantial basis for a finding of reasonable cause to believe that evidence of Price's murder would be found in King's home. In addition to the information provided by Witness 1, the affidavit states how the visibly pregnant victim, Price, was found deceased on her bedroom floor and that a few days before her death she had publicly identified King as the father of her child on Facebook. Therefore, the affiant provided information that supported the reliability and the likelihood of reasonable cause to believe that there would be a DVR in King's home that contained evidence related to the murder. Considering the information provided in the affidavit as a whole, we cannot say that it was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence for the circuit court to deny King's motion to suppress. On appeal, King also asserts that the motion to suppress should have been granted because Detective O'Kelley failed to state in his affidavit that some of the information Witness 1 provided to police was inaccurate. See Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) ; State v. Rufus , 338 Ark. 305 , 993 S.W.2d 490 (1999). In Franks , the Supreme Court held that where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 . However, King did not argue to the circuit court that either Detective O'Kelley's or Witness 1's statements were knowingly and intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, and the circuit court did not make any findings on this issue. See Langford v. State , 332 Ark. 54 , 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998). Therefore, we do not consider this argument on appeal because it was not preserved. Hicks , 327 Ark. 652 , 941 S.W.2d 387 .