Summary
In Foster v. State, 278 Ark. 473, 646 S.W.2d 699 (1983), our Supreme Court upheld the stop and arrest of defendant when the policemen took no action until after they observed, in plain view, the contents of the trunk of defendant's car.
Summary of this case from Leopold v. StateOpinion
No. CR 83-23
Opinion delivered February 28, 1983
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT SUSPECT HAS COMMITTED A FELONY — TEST. — Rule 3.1, A.R.Cr.P gives a police officer the right to stop and detain for up to IS minutes any person he reasonably suspects has committed a felony; Rule 2.1 defines the test as more than an imaginary or purely conjectural suspicion, but less than probable cause; and even the higher standard of probable cause requires much less than a certainty, as it is said to exist simply if the circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent man in believing a suspect had committed a crime. 2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY STOP AND ARREST. — Where Plain clothes police officers who were cruising at 9:00 p.m. in an unmarked car observed appellant parked in a lighted area at a street intersection with the car trunk open and what appeared to be a stick of bologna in his hand, with several people gathered around to whom he was showing other items in the trunk, and when he saw the officers he acted "suspicious" and tried to close the trunk, whereupon, the officers stopped and observed in the open trunk several boxes of turkey and ham sticks and unmarked cigarettes, a sufficient manifestation existed to suggest a reasonable suspicion on the part of the officers that appellant was engaged in some type of criminal activity.
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Fourth Division; Harlan A. Weber, Judge; affirmed.
Mike Smith, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In a non-jury trial appellant was convicted of theft by receiving and sentenced to four years imprisonment with two years suspended. Appellant questions "[w]hether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant had committed a felony or a misdemeanor as defined" by A.R.Cr.P., Rule 9.1. He then argues that the policemen lacked a "reasonable suspicion" to believe that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity which justified the stop and arrest.
At approximately 9 p.m., two police officers in plain clothes and an unmarked car were cruising in a lighted area when they observed the appellant and another individual standing at the rear of a parked car, at a street intersection, with the trunk open. Appellant was holding what appeared to be a stick of bologna. He was showing items in the trunk to "other persons." As the officers drove by and looked, the appellant noticed them. He was "acting suspicious" and attempted to close the trunk. They stopped and observed in the open trunk several boxes of what appeared to be bologna which was later identified as Golden Platter Turkey and Ham Sticks, marked as "J.A.X." and "H.I." Boxes of unstamped cigarettes also were found in the trunk. At this point the officers arrested the appellant. The boxes of meat were later determined to be the property of Jacksonville High School.
We first observe that the policemen did not stop appellant. Neither did they detain him until after they saw the contents of the trunk of his car. In Tillman, Huggins Byrd v. State, 275 Ark. 275, 630 S.W.2d 5 (1982), we explained the requirements of Rule 3.1. There we said:
Our Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1 gives a police officer the right to stop and detain for up to 15 minutes any person he reasonably suspects has committed a felony. Rule 2.1 defines the test as more than an imaginary or purely conjectural suspicion, but less than probable cause. Even the higher standard of probable cause requires much less than a certainty, as it is said to exist simply if the circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent man in believing a suspect had committed a crime. (Cites omitted.) It does not depend on the same type of evidence as would be needed to support a conviction.
Here, when we consider the factors surrounding the appellant's activity and conduct, it must be said a sufficient manifestation existed to suggest a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officers that the appellant was engaged in some type of criminal activity.
Affirmed.