Court Opinion

ID: 9777493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:13:19.574991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:55.215234
License: Public Domain

ROBERT L. Brown, Justice, concurring. Rule 14.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure deals with exigent circumstances that might justify a vehicular search when reasonable cause for that search exists. One such exigent circumstance pertains to a search of a “moving or readily movable vehicle.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 14.1(a). That is the section on which the majority bottoms its conclusion that no search warrant was necessary in this case. I disagree. It is undisputed that the vehicle involved in this case had a flat tire. It had also been under observation by police officers for some 40 minutes. During this surveillance, there was no sign of activity around the vehicle or any attempt to move the car. Had there been, the police officers would have been well within their rights to conduct a Rule 14.1 search. But there was none. Failing efforts by someone to move the car, a search warrant should have been obtained. This could have been easily accomplished. The majority cites Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 872 S.W.2d 68 (1994), to uphold the warrantless search. But Hudson is inappo-site authority because the defendant was in his car driving when his vehicle was stopped. Moreover, it does not follow, as the majority contends, that because a suspect is at large, this renders a search of his car an emergency matter. What would have rendered the situation exigent was if the Bohanan car could have been readily moved and any evidence in the car, as a result, lost. Ark. R. Crim. P. 14.1; see also Tillman v. State, 271 Ark. 552, 609 S.W.2d 340 (1980). I would affirm, however, because proof of Bohanan’s culpability, apart from the .45 caliber cartridge found in the car, was considerable, and any error resulting from evidence amassed from an illegal search was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967); Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63, 907 S.W.2d 693 (1995); Vann v. State, 309 Ark. 303, 831 S.W.2d 126 (1992). Multiple witnesses placed Bohanan at the scene, and Donald Tyler witnessed the attempted robbery and saw Bohanan place a gun at the victim’s head. Immediately thereafter, witnesses attested to the fact that the victim had been shot and had made his way into a house. A second victim, James Patterson, was then shot through the door of that same house and wounded. The .45 caliber cartridge found in the car was, in reality, a very small facet of the State’s case. Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance. JESSON, C.J., joins.