Court Opinion

ID: 9773139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:38:16.36051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:50.351954
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. The majority correctly states that an officer who seeks to make an arrest outside his territory, without a warrant or statutory authority to do so, must be treated as a private citizen. Nevertheless, the common law accorded a private person extensive powers to arrest without warrant for felonies and breaches of peace committed in his presence. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 50 (1962). Arkansas, of course, recognizes the common law. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 1-2-119 and 16-13-201 (1987). Although the majority cites A.R.Cr.P. Rule 4.1 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-106 (1989), those provisions merely codify by rule and statute a private citizen’s authority to make an arrest when he has reasonable grounds for believing a person has committed a felony—they do nothing to repeal or alter a private person’s right to arrest a person who has committed a breach of peace in the arresting citizen’s presence. In my judgment, the only issue in this case is whether finding appellant intoxicated behind the steering wheel of his parked, but running car with its lights on can be defined as a breach of peace or disorderly conduct. If his conduct can be labeled a breach of peace, then his arrest was valid and the evidence seized was admissible. Under a statute authorizing peace officers to arrest without warrant for disorderly conduct, drunkenness in a public place has been held to be disorderly conduct, through the individual is not otherwise creating a disturbance. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 41 (1962). Arkansas has such a statute. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-11-110 (1987); but see also Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71 -207 (1987). That being so, appellant’s conviction should be affirmed. Hays, J., joins this dissent.