{ "id": 6137132, "name": "Linda BONEBRAKE v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Bonebrake v. State", "decision_date": "1995-12-06", "docket_number": "CACR 94-1100", "first_page": "81", "last_page": "84", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ark. App. 81" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "911 S.W.2d 261" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "46 Ark. App. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140034 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/46/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ark. App. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6647629 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/20/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "524 F.2d 253", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1100462 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "search incident to arrest upheld when arrestee sought to give purse to her mother and officer told her that she would need to keep it with her" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/524/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "986 F.2d 633", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 661990 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/986/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 F.2d 378", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 879443 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/577/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "492 F.2d 1260", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 474943 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/492/1260-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 752", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1772077 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 Ark. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900969 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)" }, { "parenthetical": "citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/306/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 Ark. 1057", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1604054 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/246/1057-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6176124 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/433/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 410, "char_count": 6136, "ocr_confidence": 0.85, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.021147979749158e-08, "percentile": 0.4647491031330398 }, "sha256": "3975ff21e385b1a09f05c92826daa21a27e578e8fdbf1aec3925ea1db84127b5", "simhash": "1:858963006f08c0c7", "word_count": 1039 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:35.333550+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Jennings, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree." ], "parties": [ "Linda BONEBRAKE v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.\nLinda Bonebrake appeals from her conviction at a jury trial of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver. She was sentenced to twenty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction and fined $2,000.00. She argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search that she contends was not incident to a lawful arrest. We affirm.\nOfficer Kurt Spears of the Dardanelle Police Department testified that he was called to assist appellant who had locked her keys in her car. When he arrived, appellant\u2019s nine-year-old daughter, Mindy, told him that her mother\u2019s keys were locked in her mother\u2019s car. Officer Spears testified that appellant was in the lobby of Wal-Mart, that he recognized her from a previous arrest, and that he was aware of her general background. After confirming ownership of the vehicle, appellant accompanied Officer Spears to the vehicle. An information check indicated that the license was registered to a different vehicle. A ACIC check revealed that there were outstanding arrest warrants issued against appellant for hot check violations. Officer Spears placed appellant under arrest, patted her down, searched her pockets, and placed her in the patrol car. While appellant was seated, her daughter brought appellant\u2019s purse to her. Appellant said, \u201cNo, get that away, get it out of here.\u201d Officer Spears testified that he stated to appellant\u2019s daughter, \u201cNo, just leave it here; she might need that.\u201d Appellant took the purse from her daughter. Officer Spears asked her if it contained a weapon. When he searched the purse to confirm her denial, he discovered self-closing plastic baggies containing a white powdery substance, which later proved to be cocaine.\nAppellant argues that seizure of her purse as part of a search incident to her arrest was improper because it was not in her possession at the time of her arrest. We find no error.\nArkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1 permits an officer making a lawful arrest to conduct a search, without a warrant, of a person or his property to protect the officer, to prevent the accused\u2019s escape, or to obtain evidence of the commission of an offense for which the accused is arrested or to seize contraband or fruits of the crime. Moreover, a search incident to an arrest may be made whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested may have a weapon or is about to destroy evidence. U.S. v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). A search incident to an arrest must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and not remote in time and place. Jones v. State, 246 Ark. 1057, 441 S.W.2d 458 (1969). Thus, a search may be made only of the area within the immediate control of the person arrested, which has been held to be the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Crow v. State, 306 Ark. 411, 814 S.W.2d 909 (1991) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)).\nRelying on U.S. v. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1973), appellant argues that the police cannot arrest her and then bring her into contact with possessions which are unrelated to her arrest and not within her immediate possession. Appellant cites U.S. v. Wright, 577 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1978), where the court ruled as impermissible a search, incident to arrest, of the defendant\u2019s luggage, which was not present at the time of arrest and was in the custody of an airline. The court said the only reason the luggage was near the defendant was because the officer obtained the luggage and placed it there. Similarly, appellant relies on U.S. v. Perea, 986 F.2d 633 (2nd Cir. 1993), where the court struck down a search of the defendant\u2019s duffel bag in the car trunk because the officers could not justify the search as incident to arrest by bringing the item they wished to search near the arrestee. However, these cases are distinguishable from the case now before us. Here, Officer Spears did not bring appellant\u2019s purse to her or manipulate her to be in the vicinity of her purse. Without the officer\u2019s initiation or instruction, appellant\u2019s daughter brought the purse to her, Officer Spears stated that she may need it, and appellant chose to take it. See also U.S. v. Jeffers, 524 F.2d 253 (7th Cir. 1975) (search incident to arrest upheld when arrestee sought to give purse to her mother and officer told her that she would need to keep it with her). This case is not one in which an officer arranged an incident-to-arrest exception by bringing an item into the area of an arrestee for the purpose of a search.\nAppellant also argues that the evidence should have been suppressed because it was unrelated to the offense for which she was arrested (hot check violations). Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1(d) limits the scope of a search for evidence connected with the offense for which one is arrested, but does not limit the items that may be properly seized. Van Daley v. State, 20 Ark. App. 127, 725 S.W.2d 574 (1987). The rule allows the arresting officer to seize contraband, the fruits of crime, and any other things criminally possessed which are discovered during a proper search incident to arrest. Once such items are discovered, they may be seized and used as evidence without regard to whether they are connected with the offense for which the accused was initially arrested. Id.\nIn reviewing a trial court\u2019s decision to deny an appellant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence, this court makes an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverses the decision only if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Myers v. State, 46 Ark. App. 227, 878 S.W.2d 424 (1994). We cannot say that the court\u2019s denial of appellant\u2019s motion to suppress is clearly erroneous.\nAffirmed.\nJennings, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul H. Lee, for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Linda BONEBRAKE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCACR 94-1100\n911 S.W.2d 261\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered December 6, 1995\nPaul H. Lee, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0081-01", "first_page_order": 103, "last_page_order": 106 }