Court Opinion

ID: 9674787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:35:18.006176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.565641
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. I will first discuss the failure of the trial court to suppress the evidence, i.e., the handgun. Admittedly, the officers’ went into a privately rented motel room without a search warrant or an invitation. The officers were of the same opinion as the trial court when the court stated: The intrusion at this point was harmless. There was a disturbance of some kind. The door was open. It was a public place. It appears the officers, the trial court, and my brothers here feel a hotel room is a public place. I absolutely disagree. Many people are going to be shocked to learn that an officer may wander into their motel or hotel rooms as long as the door is open. We have never held this to be so, and no case has been cited which so holds. In my opinion, a person has the same right of privacy in a hotel room as he has in his home in the country. Under this theory, if people were creating a disturbance in my yard and I opened the door to see what was happening, the officers would be authorized to enter my home and seize anything they deemed appropriate. The United States Supreme Court clearly stated in Stoner v. Calif., 376 U.S. 483 (1964), that the occupant of the hotel room was entitled to the same constitutional protection against searches and seizures as are tenants of a house or boardinghouse. See also Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10; and McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451. The majority tacitly admits the validity of the above statement, although not directly, but seeks to evade it by arguing this was an exception to the rule. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 14.3(a), is the vehicle the majority has seized to bypass what I believe to be a constitutional right of the appellant. This rule states: An officer who has reasonable cause to believe that premises or a vehicle contain: (a) individuals in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; or (b) things imminently likely to burn, explode, or otherwise cause death, seious bodily harm, or substantial destruction of property; or (c) things subject to seizure which will cause or be used to cause death or serious bodily harm if their seizure is delayed; may, without a search warrant, enter and search such premises and vehicles, and the person therein, to the extent reasonably necessary for the prevention of such death, bodily harm, or destruction. The facts of this case clearly reveal there was no one in imminent danger of harm. The officers never testified that they had even a suspicion that anyone there was in danger at the time. Three of the people had departed, and the three remaining were at most arguing among themselves inside the motel room. It seems the persons who are said by the majority to have been in danger were the officers, after they had made the unauthorized entry into a privately rented room. The women left when the officers entered the room. Obviously, they were not in danger of harm. No one else is alleged to have been threatened or in danger. The appellant was one of the people who was a guest in the room. I do not believe the facts of this case come close to creating exigent circumstances which would allow a warrantless search into this private room. Since the trial court was under the erroneous impression Room 25 was a public place, its ruling may well have been to suppress had it been the opinion the room was entitled to the sanctity of a home, which I believe is clearly the law. This was not a situation where an officer had the right ot bring Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12, into action. Rule 10.1(a) defines a search as an intrusion under color of authority of an individual’s person, property or privacy. This is exactly what the facts of this case reveal. Such search was clearly prohibited by the Constitutions of Arkansas and the United States. We treated a somewhat similar search of a person’s motel room in Haynes v. State, 269 Ark. 506, 602 S.W. 2d 599 (1980). In Haynes we suppressed the evidence when the officers walked into a defendant’s room and seized it without a warrant. S. Ct. 1371 (1980); and Riddick v. New York, 445 U.S. _, 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980), where it was stated: It is a “basic principle of the Fourth Amendment law” that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Yet it is also well-settled that objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant. The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The distinction between a warrantless seizure in an open area and such a seizure on private premises was plainly stated in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 354, 50 L. Ed. 2d 530, 97 S. Ct. 619: *** Therefore, the entry into Room 25 of the motel was illegal, and the evidence should have been suppressed. So far as the actual seizure of the weapon is concerned, Officer Howard stated: — He had a shirt on and I observed the grips sticking out and I grabbed for it. When I did, that’s when he grabbed for it too. I touched it first and then he had his hand on it. He put his hand on it. The officer further testified the weapon was fully loaded and ready to fire. The charge was a felon in possession of a firearm. It was not necessary to prove more. He did not recognize the appellant until he entered the motel room. Officer Howard somewhat unresponsively stated he knew the appellant had been convicted of murder. He had been convicted of second degree murder, a somewhat lesser offense. It was not a proper statement and should have been corrected on the spot by the trial court. I will not mention several other instances where the prosecutors or the officers added prejudicial information to answers or questions which had already been properly answered. I must add a statement from the state’s closing argument which I feel was grounds for a mistrial. After stating appellant was going for his gun, a statement I do not believe is supported by the record, Mr. Crowe stated: What it all boils down to is this: But for the grace of God and the quick thinking and reactions of Jeral Howard, you might be considering here today two counts of capital felony murders against this man. There was no evidence in the record to support such statement, and it could only serve to inflame the minds of the jury. It left the impression the appellant intended to murder two officers in the performance of their duty. Although the court ruled the remark out of order upon appellant’s objection, the damage had been done. A belated motion for a mistrial was made and overruled. I think the court correctly summarized the state’s conduct when it stated: However, I think, Mr. Crowe, you knew or should have known that that was improper argument and I consider that you did it calculatedly. And also that you guesstimated that the worst thing that the court would do would be to admonish you not to do it anymore and instruct the jury to disregard it. If you did it deliberately, don’t do it anymore. Obviously, the prosecuting attorney correctly predicted the court would slap his hands and let it go. The trial court was put in a very awkward position by the state. No matter how much it embarrassed the other parties, the appellant is serving time now. Although it might be of little or no lasting benefit to appellant, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.