Burks v. State, 362 Ark. 558

210 S.W.3d 62 (2005) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 9, 2005 · No. CR 03-1276

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed James Burks's conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana. The court held that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to continue detaining Burks for a drug-detection dog sniff based on the rental agreement and surrounding circumstances. A dissent argued that the continued detention conflicted with recent Arkansas precedent and violated Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Betty C. Dickey; Chief Justice Hannah; Tom Glaze; Imber
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
June 9, 2005
Docket number
CR 03-1276
Procedural posture
Burks appealed his conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana after the trial court denied his motion to suppress marijuana seized from the trunk of his rental car following a traffic stop.
Standard of review
The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress and the validity of the traffic stop and continued detention under probable-cause, reasonable-suspicion, and constitutional search-and-seizure standards.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion
Parties
James Thomas Burks v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizureprobable causesuppression of evidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the traffic stop was unsupported by probable cause because Burks failed to obey the traffic-control sign.
  2. Whether the traffic stop was the product of racial profiling.
  3. Whether Burks was unlawfully detained after the legitimate purpose of the traffic stop ended while officers conducted a drug-dog sniff.
  4. Whether the exterior canine sniff violated the Fourth Amendment or article 2, section 15 of the Arkansas Constitution.

Holdings

  1. The traffic stop was valid because the officer observed Burks fail to obey a traffic-control device, violating Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-52-103.
  2. The continued detention was reasonable under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1 because the totality of the circumstances supplied specific, particularized, and articulable reasons to suspect that criminal activity was afoot.
  3. The use of a drug-detection dog during the traffic stop did not constitute an illegal search under the federal Constitution.
  4. The court did not reach the merits of the racial-profiling claim because the trial court had not ruled on the relevant statistics.

Key quotations

In order to make a valid traffic stop, a police officer must have probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been violated. (64)
Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold that these facts establish "specific, particularized, and articulable reasons" that criminal activity was afoot. (65)
The use of a drug dog during a traffic stop does not constitute an illegal search under the federal constitution. (65)

Factual background

At approximately 2:56 a.m., officers observed Burks drive off the left side of an interstate and later fail to obey a "Merge Now" sign. After stopping him, Deputy LaMora learned from the rental agreement that the vehicle was overdue and restricted to California and Arizona, while Burks said he was driving east to New York City. Burks appeared anxious and evasive, refused consent to search, and was detained while a drug dog sniffed the exterior of the vehicle; the dog alerted and officers found seventy pounds of marijuana in the trunk.

Procedural history

The trial court denied Burks's suppression motion and convicted him of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, imposing a twenty-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…