Court Opinion

ID: 9779534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:05:38.426674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:27.647452
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. The problem with the Rules of Criminal Procedure is that some of the rules are not procedural, they are substantive. It is a universally accepted principle of law that courts cannot make substantive rules, that is, make law like a legislature does. It is based on the fundamental principles of of constitutional law which regulate the roles of the branches of government — separation of powers and checks and balances. When governors or legislatures exceed their constitutional powers, the courts check them. When courts do so, there is not much to check them, save the people rising up to stop them. In a system that depends on respect for the law for its existence rather than force, it is most difficult for the people to challenge unlawful acts of the judiciary. So a court exceeding its power is the most grievous violation of constitutional law there is. In adopting some of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, we have overstepped our constitutional authority. Many of these rules in the area of arrest and search and seizure amount to legislative acts by a judicial body. The rules are attempts by this court to codify legislative acts and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As a result, we often find ourselves trying to interpret substantive laws we have made rather than deciding cases on the basis of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution. While it is handy to have a set of rules police officials can refer to, those rules should not issue from this court. We review and decide cases, not write legislation, and when we start writing substantive law, we step outside our role as a judicial body. What is “procedural” about rules regulating police conduct involving search, seizure and arrest? Obviously, nothing. Procedural rules should address exactly that: what procedural steps should be taken in court. See Miller v. State, 262 Ark. 223, 555 S.W.2d 563 (1977). A.R.Cr.P. Rule 2.3 is a substantive rule. It concerns the warning a police officer must give if a person is requested to come to the police station. It has nothing to do with the steps to be taken in court. Indeed, it attempts to regulate the conduct of parties acting entirely beyond the bounds and power of this court. Adopting such rules is like incorporating rules of the road into the Rules of Civil Procedure. We have appointed a committee to update the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and some progress is being made. But the rules should be revised to delete the substantive portions entirely. I find no error and would affirm the conviction.