|
|
| |
| Wed, Dec. 3, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court: Rules different for vehicle, dwelling searches Thursday, Apr 26, 2007 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The state Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected a Philadelphia man's argument that an Arkansas State Police trooper should have advised him of his right to refuse a search before searching his vehicle. James Malcom Jones, 28, was stopped on Interstate 40 in Crawford County on May 15, 2005. Trooper Jason Aaron reported he obtained Jones' consent for a search and found 22 pounds of cocaine hidden in a compartment in the dashboard. Jones was convicted in April 2006 of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison. On appeal, Jones argued Crawford County Circuit Judge Gary Cottrell should have granted a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his vehicle. Jones relied on a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling in the case State of Arkansas v. Jaye Brown and Michael Williams. In that ruling the high court held that when officers conduct a "knock-and-talk" procedure at a person's home, the person has the right to refuse a search. The high court followed that ruling with a per curiam opinion amending the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure to state that a search of a dwelling is not valid unless the person giving consent was advised of the right to refuse consent. In an opinion affirming the circuit court's ruling in Jones' case, the appeals court said it could not consider the merits of Jones' argument because he did not make the argument during his trial. Appeals Judge John Robbins wrote in the opinion that even if the court could consider the merits of the argument, it would affirm the lower court's ruling because of precedents set by the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said in the Brown case its ruling was specific to dwelling searches, noting "Arkansas' long-standing and steadfast adherence to the sanctity of the home and protection against unreasonable government intrusions." In 2005, an appellant in another case asked the Supreme Court to extend the rule regarding dwelling searches to vehicle searches, and the court rejected that request, Robbins wrote. |
