|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Search of Fort Smith man's room legal, federal appeals court rules Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - Law officers did not use coercion in obtaining a Fort Smith man's consent for a search after entering the apartment where he was staying with guns drawn, a federal appeals panel ruled Monday. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld a district court decision that rejected Eduardo Arreola's claim the evidence seized should be suppressed because he did not voluntarily consent to the search. Arreolas conditionally pleaded guilty last year to possession of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith to 11 years and three months in prison. Arreola entered the plea on the condition he reserved the right to appeal a federal judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence in the case. He claimed local and federal officers obtained the evidence in illegal searches of his bedroom and car on Oct. 7, 2005. Officers conducted the searches following the arrest of Arreola's brother, Esteban Arreola, on drug charges. After his arrest, Esteban Arreola told federal investigators he obtained meth from his brother, who drove a white Pontiac Bonneville. He also said he kept guns in his Fort Smith apartment, despite being a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from owning firearms. After Esteban Arreola signed a form giving consent to a search of the apartment, federal agents went to the apartment and saw a white Pontiac Bonneville parked outside. Concluding that Eduardo Arreola was likely to be in the apartment, the agents requested assistance from Fort Smith police. With guns drawn, five or six officers knocked on the door, which was answered by Esteban Arreola's fiancee. While the officers were talking to the fiancee, Eduardo Arreola walked out of a bedroom in the apartment. The officers entered the apartment, arrested Eduardo Arreola, handcuffed him, placed him in a chair and secured the apartment. Eduardo Arreola then signed a form giving consent to a search of his bedroom and car. The officers found three ounces of meth in Eduardo Arreola's room and two guns and a bag of marijuana in his car. Eduardo Arreola claimed the evidence should be suppressed because his consent was not voluntary. U.S. District Judge Robert T. Dawson denied the motion to suppress, and on Monday the 8th Circuit upheld that ruling. "Eduardo argues that his consent was ... coerced because numerous law enforcement officers were present when he consented, and because they all drew their weapons when they entered the apartment. We disagree," the appeals court said in a per curiam order. The court found that the officers drew their guns only when they first entered the apartment and holstered them once the scene was secure. The mere presence of multiple officers and weapons does not constitute coercion, the court ruled. "The officers here never used their weapons to coerce Eduardo to give consent," the court said in its order. |
