Court Opinion

ID: 9759350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:13:40.47331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:01.370612
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority opinion in this case for several reasons. Had the trial court proceeded in accordance with this dissent, the results of the trial probably would have been about the same. In my opinion, the errors committed do not fit into the “harmless error” category; neither do they reach up to the constitutional denial level. Nevertheless, they, are errors which the court sanctions in this case and are likely to be enlarged in the future. The time to correct such errors, in my opinion, is now. The criminal act occurred in Crittenden County on June 12, 1976, about 7:00 p.m. Within a couple of hours, the Crittenden County sheriff commenced his investigation. During the next few hours, the Crittenden County sheriff developed enough evidence to form the belief that appellant was probably the man he wanted. His suspicions were strong enough that he traveled to St. Francis County looking for appellant. About 3:00 a.m. the following day, June 13, 1976, Deputy Davis of Crittenden County went to St. Francis County and met Deputy Sam Hughes and together they went to a place called Hicks Station, accompanied by an officer from Earle, Arkansas, where appellant was located. Deputy Davis had not obtained a warrant for the arrest of appellant although eight hours had elapsed since the robbery had taken place. There is absolutely no evidence appellant had reason to believe he was a suspect in this crime nor was he attempting to flee. The sheriff and his deputies, like other county officers, have jurisdiction within their county unless it is extended in some manner, otherwise there would be no need for each county to elect a sheriff. If there was an exception in this case to allow a sheriff of one county to make an arrest in another county, it must be one of fresh pursuit, a citizen’s arrest, or other statutory grounds. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-404 (Repl. 1977) allows a private person to arrest if he had reasonable grounds for believing the person arrested has committed a felony. “Fresh pursuit” is defined in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-503 (Repl. 1977); “... the pursuit of a person who has committed a felony or is reasonably suspected of having committed a felony in this state — Fresh pursuit as used herein shall not necessarily imply instant pursuit, but pursuit without unreasonable delay.” I have been unable to locate any case wherein the meaning of fresh pursuit has been construed. Rule 4.1, on its face, would appear to allow an officer to make an arrest, such as this one, without regard to county lines. However, we must look at it overall and in light of prior determinations of the extent of the sheriff’s authority. In the present case, the robbery occurred about 7:00 p.m. and by 9:00 p.m., or soon thereafter, the Crittenden County sheriff had determined appellant was a suspect and commenced searching for him. Upon learning the suspect was probably at Hicks Station in St. Francis County, the sheriff’s deputy proceeded, without a warrant, to St. Francis County where he met a St. Francis County deputy and then located appellant and arrested him. Although the St. Francis deputy and an officer from Earle were present, the Crittenden County deputy made the arrest. In the case of Blevins v. State, 31 Ark. 53 (1876), the Sheriff of Pope County made an arrest in Conway County and this Court stated: “The act of the Sheriff of Pope County therefore, in arresting said Moore in Conway County, was of no more force and validity than if it had been that of a private citizen and the bond taken by him upon the arrest was a mullity.” If the Crittenden County deputy had obtained a warrant, or even given the St. Francis County deputy reasonable cause to believe the appellant had committed a felony and allowed the St. Francis deputy to make the arrest, there would be no doubt in my mind that the arrest was legal. However, none of these were done. This leaves, in my opinion, only the fresh pursuit theory. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Sheriff of Morris County, Texas, had no authority to arrest a person in Titus County, Texas. Ward v. Texas, 316 U.S. 547, 62 S. Ct. 1139 (1942). Here the arresting officer had known for four or five hours who he was going to arrest if he could find him. He was never in pursuit but only looking or trying to locate the suspect. He found him in the adjoining county and arrested him and transported him out of the county without a hearing as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-502 (Repl. 1977). This statute is a part of the Fresh Pursuit Act (1941 Ark. Acts, No. 19). If the arrest was illegal, and I think it was, then the evidence should have been suppressed. There was absolutely nothing to connect the $52 to the robbery. I am sure a lot of people in St. Francis County have as much as $52 on them at various times and certainly it is not evidence they have committed a crime. If the victim had even stated the money found was in the same denominations as that found on the appellant, it might have shed some light on the subject. Even with a valid arrest, the money should not have been admitted into evidence. There has probably been no injustice done in this case, but appellant’s rights have been violated. In the next case, these same illegal acts might cause a manifest injustice to occur. I am afraid the majority has fostered the incursion of roving bands of strangers who might be counterfeited by bands of marauders. There is still plenty of time to do this whole case over and omit the errors committed in this case. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.