Court Opinion

ID: 9690910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:51:49.715455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:06.590183
License: Public Domain

T OM GLAZE, Justice, dissenting. Once again, this court sidesteps review of a search and seizure case that specifically involves the interpretation and application of its rules, Rules 11.1 and 11.2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Our Ride 3(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for an appeal by the State when the correct and uniform administration of the criminal rules requires review by this court. Here, not only are Rules 11.1 and 11.2 in issue here, but also in question is the purely legal issue of “probable cause.” See Addison v. State, 298 Ark. 1, 765 S.W.2d 566 (1989); see also State v. Sullivan, 340 Ark. 315, 11 S.W.2d 526 (2000) (where we granted review where appeal involved the constitutional safeguards applicable to traffic stops and the misinterpretation and misapplication of Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2), but see State v. Guthrie, 341 Ark. 624, 16 S.W.3d 10 (2000) (where in a split decision, this court in a search and seizure case similar to Sullivan, refused the State a review under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3(c)). In my view, the majority court was wrong in Guthrie, and it is wrong here, as well.