Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISIONS I & II
No. CR-12-1027
CHARLES STUTTE Opinion Delivered February 26, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2012-765]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Charles Stutte appeals his convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI)
and resisting arrest. He argues that the warrantless arrest in his home violated the Fourth
Amendment and that there was insufficient evidence of resisting arrest. We affirm.
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss in circuit court, arguing that his arrest constituted
an unreasonable search and seizure because the arresting officer entered his home without a
warrant or exigent circumstances.1 The motion was heard in conjunction with appellant’s
bench trial.
Corporal Robert Hargus of the Fayetteville Police Department testified that on July
31, 2011, he was working as a selective traffic enforcement unit in the Mount Comfort area.
He noted that, prior to the incident involving appellant, there had been some calls reporting
loud parties in that area. Around 1:30 a.m. Sunday morning, Hargus observed appellant’s car
1
This motion was treated as a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
exceeding the speed limit and failing to maintain its lane. He saw the car move side to side,
crossing onto the broken white line separating the lanes. Hargus then activated his recording
device and followed the car. He saw the car twice move left over the double yellow line and
subsequently move over the solid white fog line. Hargus testified that there was moderate
traffic in the area at the time. Hargus activated his patrol lights, but the car did not pull over
and continued on at the same speed. Hargus felt that the car could have safely pulled over
because there were large open parking areas in the immediate vicinity.
When the car did not respond to his blue lights, Hargus activated his siren. Again the
car did not pull over and continued traveling at the same pace. In a final attempt to get the
car stopped, Hargus shined his spot light into the rear view mirrors of the car. Still, it did not
pull over. Eventually, the car turned left onto another street, turned into a driveway, and
parked in a garage that had just been opened. Hargus had unsuccessfully attempted to stop
the car for more than a minute.
Hargus testified that appellant got out of his car and began walking towards the rear
of the car. Hargus asked him to stop and said that he needed to talk to him. Appellant
replied “what,” and Hargus repeated his request to come talk to him. Appellant then replied
“why” and turned to walk toward the interior door to the house. Hargus said that he stepped
inside the garage, grabbed appellant’s right arm, and told him to stop. Hargus said that he
smelled a strong odor of intoxicants and observed that appellant was sweating. Appellant
tugged his right arm, used profanities, and tried to walk away. Hargus said at that point he
told appellant that he was under arrest for suspicion of drunk driving. Appellant struggled
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
when Hargus attempted to handcuff him. Appellant was charged with DWI, resisting arrest,
violation of the implied-consent law, and careless driving.
Appellant argued that there were no exigent circumstances that would have allowed
Hargus to enter his garage for a misdemeanor arrest. The circuit court found that there was
probable cause for appellant’s arrest, that there were exigent circumstances, and that driving
while intoxicated was not a minor offense. The court found appellant guilty of all of the
charges and merged the careless-driving count into the DWI conviction.
I. DWI
A warrantless entry into a private home is presumptively unreasonable. Norris v. State,
338 Ark. 397, 993 S.W.2d 918 (1999). The burden is on the State to prove that the
warrantless activity was reasonable. Id. On appeal, this court will make an independent
determination of the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest based on the totality of the
circumstances. Id.
The United States Supreme Court held in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980),
that warrantless felony arrests in the home are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, absent
probable cause and exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are those requiring
immediate aid or action, and, while there is no definite list of what constitutes exigent
circumstances, several established examples include the risk of removal or destruction of
evidence, danger to the lives of police officers or others, and the hot pursuit of a suspect.
Steinmetz v. State, 366 Ark. 222, 225, 234 S.W.3d 302, 304 (2006).
Appellant argues that Corporal Hargus entered his garage without probable cause or
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
exigent circumstances in order to arrest him for a relatively minor offense. He argues that it
was determined in Norris that DWI was a minor offense for Fourth Amendment purposes and
that Hargus did not even have probable cause to arrest him for DWI prior to entering the
garage. Appellant contends that two exigent circumstances alleged by the State below—the
destruction of evidence and the danger of appellant returning to his car—were rejected in
Norris.
In Norris, a citizen who observed the appellant driving erratically followed him home.
The witness reported his observations to the police. Thereafter, the police went to the
residence, gained entry, and arrested the appellant for DWI after locating him in his bedroom.
The supreme court held that the warrantless home arrest was unreasonable under these
circumstances. The Norris court relied on Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984).
In Welsh, a witness saw the appellant driving erratically and ultimately driving off the
road. The witness observed the driver abandon the car and walk away. He reported the
incident to the police, and the police located an address by checking the vehicle registration.
The police went to the address, entered the home, found the appellant in his bed, and arrested
him for DWI. Thus, the facts of the Norris and Welsh cases are clearly and strikingly
distinguishable from the case at bar.
Probable cause to arrest is defined as “a reasonable ground for suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing that a
crime has been committed by the person suspected.” Hilton v. State, 80 Ark. App. 401, 405,
96 S.W.3d 757, 760 (2003). Probable cause to arrest does not require the quantum of proof
4
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
necessary to support a conviction, and in assessing the existence of probable cause, the
appellate court’s review is liberal rather than strict. Id. We look to the facts within the
arresting officer’s knowledge—not his stated reasoning—to determine whether those facts are
sufficient to permit a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been
committed. Banks v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 383.
If a person knows that his immediate detention is being attempted by a duly authorized
law enforcement officer, it is the lawful duty of the person to refrain from fleeing, either on
foot or by means of any vehicle or conveyance. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-125(a) (Supp. 2011).
Although appellant was not charged with fleeing, Corporal Hargus’s testimony that appellant
ignored his blue lights, siren, and spot light provides probable cause that appellant committed
the offense of fleeing. Fleeing by means of any vehicle is considered a Class A misdemeanor,
for which the sentence shall not exceed one year. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-125(d)(1)(A); Ark.
Code Ann. § 5-4-401(b)(1) (Repl. 2013). However, the fleeing statute provides that a person
convicted of fleeing in a vehicle shall serve a minimum time in jail. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-
125(d)(1)(B).
The Supreme Court held in Welsh that “the penalty that may attach to any particular
offense seems to provide the clearest and most consistent indication of the State’s interest in
arresting individuals suspected of committing that offense.” Welsh, 466 U.S. at 754 n.14.
Welsh involved first-offense DWI, which in Wisconsin was a noncriminal violation for which
no imprisonment was possible. The Norris court held that the penalties imposed for first-
offense DWI in Arkansas were sufficiently similar to those penalties in Welsh to conclude that
5
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
the offense was a relatively minor offense in Fourth Amendment analysis. The Norris court
noted that while first-offense DWI carries a penalty of imprisonment from one day to one
year, the court may order public service in lieu of jail. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-111(a)(1)(B).
Fleeing, on the contrary, requires that the offender serve time in jail.
The facts of this case are further distinguishable from Norris and Welsh because the
police here were in hot pursuit of a suspect. Appellant relies on Butler v. State, 309 Ark. 211,
829 S.W.2d 412 (1992), in arguing that hot pursuit involving a minor offense does not
constitute an exigent circumstance. The offense in Butler, however, was disorderly conduct,
which our supreme court noted was a Class C misdemeanor. Butler summoned the police
to his home and spoke with an officer on his porch before communication “deteriorated.”
Butler then re-entered his home and the officer followed, announcing that he was under
arrest. Our supreme court held that, under these circumstances, there is no exigent
circumstance that would allow the warrantless entry into the home for “what is concededly,
at most, a petty disturbance.” Id. at 217, 829 S.W.2d at 415. The circumstances and the
offenses involved here clearly distinguish this case from Butler.
In addition to the traffic offenses and fleeing that Hargus personally observed, he had
a reasonable suspicion that appellant was driving while intoxicated, which justifies a stop
under Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Murrell v. State, 2011 Ark. App.
311. Hargus testified that appellant’s driving, the time of day, the day of the week, and the
previous complaints of parties in the general area formed his suspicion. Furthermore,
appellant had ignored Hargus’s efforts to get him to stop. When considering the totality of
6
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
the circumstances, the State had a strong interest in precipitating appellant’s arrest.
In reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we make an
independent examination based upon the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the
decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Hilton v. State, 80 Ark. App.
401, 96 S.W.3d 757 (2003). We hold that, under the circumstances, the trial court’s decision
in concluding that the warrantless arrest was reasonable was not clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss.
II. Resisting Arrest
A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if he or she knowingly resists a person
known by him or her to be a law enforcement officer effecting an arrest. Ark. Code Ann. §
5-54-103(a) (Repl. 2005). “Resists” means using or threatening to use physical force or any
other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person. Id.
Appellant argues that there is no evidence that he resisted arrest by any means that
created a substantial risk of physical injury. The State contends that this specific argument was
not made below and is not preserved for appeal. We agree. In a nonjury trial, a motion for
dismissal shall be made at the close of all of the evidence and shall state the specific grounds
therefor. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b). Appellant made no argument below concerning the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for resisting arrest. We affirm.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.
PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., dissent.
7
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge, dissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion only
as it relates to the denial of Stutte’s motion to suppress because binding federal and state
supreme court case law mandates it. There is a clear line of demarcation between warrantless
arrests and arrests with a warrant. That clear line is the entrance to the home.
I agree that Officer Hargis had a reasonable and constitutional basis for initiating a
traffic stop based on his observation of one or more misdemeanor violations. Stutte was cited
for careless and prohibited driving, although he was not cited for speeding. Hargis could
legitimately initiate a traffic stop in order to determine whether Stutte was driving while
intoxicated, although the officer candidly admitted that the evidence to support probable
cause for arrest did not develop until the officer entered Stutte’s home. The majority opinion
holds that Hargis could have cited Stutte for Class A misdemeanor fleeing, although Hargis
did not cite Stutte for fleeing. None of those misdemeanors, even if supported by probable
cause, would provide a constitutionally sound basis for warrantless entry into Stutte’s home
to search, seize, or arrest Stutte. Binding precedent requires this inescapable legal conclusion.
The Fourth Amendment provides all citizens with protection from unreasonable
searches and seizures. The physical entry into the home is the “chief evil” against which the
wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed, and the principal means of protecting
that sacred space is the warrant requirement before entry into a citizen’s home for the purpose
of search or arrest. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S.
573 (1980). The Fourth Amendment sets a “firm line at the entrance to the house” or
“home.” Welsh, supra; Payton, supra. The State bears the burden of establishing that any
8
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
warrantless entry into the home is justified. Welsh, supra; Payton, supra; Norris v. State, 338
Ark. 397, 993 S.W.2d 918 (1999). Exceptions to the warrant requirement are few and
carefully delineated, and the State bears a heavy burden to overcome that requirement. Welsh,
supra; Payton, supra; Norris, supra. This is as it should be in a free society.
Assuming arguendo that probable cause for arrest on any of the aforementioned
misdemeanors was in existence prior to Officer Hargis’s entry into Stutte’s home, the Fourth
Amendment would require the State to prove exigent circumstances to justify warrantless
entry into the home. Those exigent circumstances are simply not present.
First-offense DWI in Arkansas, an unclassified misdemeanor, is considered a “serious”
but “minor” offense as it relates to the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Norris, supra. The
Norris court specifically held:
It is true that this Court and the legislature of this State have recognized driving
while intoxicated as a serious offense. The question then becomes whether, in the
statutory scheme of criminal offenses, the seriousness of DWI, first offense, rises to the
level that would warrant violation of the Fourth Amendment’s special protection
afforded to the individual in his home, as articulated in Payton, supra, and Welsh. We
hold that it does not.
338 Ark. at 403, 993 S.W.2d at 922.
The gravity of the crime is an important consideration when deciding whether exigent
circumstances are present, and the supreme court has previously held that first-offense
misdemeanor DWI does not rise to the level required to do away with the warrant
requirement. Norris, supra. Once a suspected impaired driver is in the home and out of his
vehicle, the State’s interest in avoiding the destruction of evidence (blood-alcohol-level
dissipation) and public safety (the driver potentially returning to his vehicle to reenter the
9
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
public roadway as a safety hazard) do not qualify as “exigent circumstances” for purposes of
doing away with the requirement of a warrant before entry. Norris, supra. “Hot pursuit” is
the only other potential exigent circumstance that would support entry into the home
without a warrant. Butler v. State, 309 Ark. 211, 829 S.W.2d 412 (1992). “Hot pursuit” is
not a valid exigency when the offense is “minor,” nor does a valid exigency arise simply by
the existence of probable cause to believe that a “serious” crime has been committed. Id.
The majority herein distinguishes the pertinent precedents on their facts; however, I
cannot distinguish those same precedents on their constitutional principles.
The police officers had other legitimate options readily available. Specifically, the
police officers could have obtained an arrest warrant from the appropriate judge and returned
to Stutte’s home to effectuate an arrest with a warrant. This is precisely the available option
discussed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Butler. The United States Supreme Court in
Welsh held that:
Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is
on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome
the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.
When the government’s interest is only to arrest for a minor offense, the presumption
of unreasonableness is difficult to rebut, and the government usually should be allowed
to make such arrests only with a warrant issued upon probable cause by a neutral and
detached magistrate.
466 U.S. at 750.
“Regardless of how brief or slight the intrusion, or how weighty the public interest,
‘an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely
at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field.’” State v. Allen, 2013 Ark. 35, at 5, ___
10
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 139
S.W.3d ___, ___ (citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)). However noble the law
enforcement officer’s intentions or distasteful Stutte’s behavior, we are duty-bound to uphold
the Constitution and to adhere to binding Arkansas and United States Supreme Court
precedent.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
PITTMAN, J., joins.
Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: William B. Putman, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
11