Court Opinion

ID: 9771223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:37:25.174563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:27.172992
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I concur with that portion of the majority opinion dealing with pecuniary profit but I cannot agree with that portion dealing with the search warrant. Arkansas R. Crim. P. 16.2 provides that a motion to suppress “shall be granted only if the court finds that the violation upon which it is based was substantial. . . .” (My emphasis). Among the several factors to be considered in making that determination is the extent of invasion of the defendant’s privacy. Here, in contrast to the facts in Garner v. State, 307 Ark. 353, 820 S.W.2d 446 (1991), where the search began at 2:30 a.m., the search began at 8:45 in the evening, when, according to the undisputed testimony, it was still twilight. There was no evidence that the appellant had retired for the evening, in fact, the appellant offered no proof whatever at the suppression hearing. Thus, the search in this case began well before bedtime for the vast majority of people. In the absence of any showing that his right of privacy was materially disturbed, in my estimation the appellant has failed to meet the requirement of Rule 16.2. See James v. State, 280 Ark. 359, 658 S.W.2d 382 (1983); Brothers v. State, 261 Ark. 64, 546 S.W.2d 715 (1977), and United States v. Koller, 559 F.Supp. 539 (E.D. 1983).