Opinion ID: 1684864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Comply with Ark. R.Crim. P. 2.3

Text: Anderson contends that his rights under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.3 were violated. Rule 2.3 provides: If a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to this rule requests any person to come to or remain at a police station, . . . he shall take such steps as are reasonable to make clear that there is no legal obligation to comply with such a request. Again, Officer Jester testified that although he could not remember at exactly what point it occurred, he did hear Lieutenant Barfield advise Anderson that he was free to leave and was not under arrest at that time, prior to their departure to the sheriff's office. This court has observed that Rule 2.3 does not require an explicit statement that one is not required to accompany the police; rather, the police only need to take such steps as are `reasonable to make clear that there is no legal obligation to comply' with the request to come to the police station. Shields v. State, 348 Ark. 7, 14, 70 S.W.3d 392, 395 (2002). Here, there is evidence that an explicit statement was made to Anderson that he was not under arrest and was free to leave. This advice by law enforcement adequately supports the State's position that it was clear to Anderson that he was not required to go to the sheriff's department.