Court Opinion

ID: 9807728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:14:26.173503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:52:44.166110
License: Public Domain

Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, concurring. |7I agree that this case must be dismissed, but I disagree with the majority’s reasoning regarding the State’s first point on appeal. The issue before us is not whether a police officer following a private insurance investigator into a building destroyed by fire obviated the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The State’s argument is that the circuit court’s analysis of the situation was flawed because, rather than first considering whether Brashers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his fire-damaged business three days after the fire, the circuit court “prematurely interjected” the question of agency. Although the State did not submit a written brief to the circuit court, it did make this argument. I am mindful that appeals by the State are limited to situations in which this court’s holding would be important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. State v. Crane, 2014 Ark. 443, 446 S.W.3d 182. The correct and uniform administration of the criminal law is the circumstance in which the issue presented is solely a question of law and is independent of the facts in the case. Id. In my view, the case before us is exactly the type of appeal by the State that we should accept. The issue is whether the circuit court asked the correct question, not whether it came up with the correct answer. Nonetheless, this case must be' dismissed because the State failed to get a ruling on its reasonable-expectation-of-privacy argument. Failure to obtain a ruling on an issue at the trial level precludes review on appeal. Maiden v. State, 2014 Ark. 294, 438 S.W.3d 263. This court does not “assume” that an argument has been ruled on simply because a circuit court states that it considered all arguments. TEMCO Const., LLC v. Gann, 2013 Ark. 202, 427 S.W.3d 651. Moreover, a detailed ruling on a different argument does not constitute a ruling by implication so as to preserve an issue for appeal. Arkansas Lottery Com’n v. Alpha Marketing, 2012 Ark. 23, 386 S.W.3d 400.