Court Opinion

ID: 9640861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:17:11.840204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:33.402520
License: Public Domain

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice, concurring. I concur in the results reached by the majority; however, I find the threshold question to be the special judge’s authority to issue a search warrant rather than the good faith efforts of the officers in serving the warrant. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, as enumerated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), relates to the validity of an issued warrant rather than the judicial authority of the party issuing the warrant. Under the circumstances, I think we are required to examine the authority of the court before we consider the validity of its warrants. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the appellee’s case was “not pending before Special Judge Naramore at the time of his election on April 30, 1990, [and that] the Special Judge did not have authority under Section 21 of Article 7 to issue the search warrant on May 4, 1990.” I would address the court’s finding and disagree. Suffice it to say that Section 21 judges are elected “to preside at such court” and carry with them “the same power and authority in said court as the regular judge would have had if present and presiding. . . .” Ark. Const, art. 7, § 21. This power and authority must mean more than the simple authority to hear pending cases. Otherwise a specially elected judge cannot fully meet the emergency needs of the judicial district in a case where the regular judge has resigned or permanently disqualified, and the permanent vacancy has not been filled by execute appointment under Amendment 29. Judge Naramore had authority to issue the warrant in question.