{
  "id": 1709225,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Charles E. BLOCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Block",
  "decision_date": "1980-10-13",
  "docket_number": "CR 80-153",
  "first_page": "671",
  "last_page": "672",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 671"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "606 S.W.2d 362"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "256 Ark. 756",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724712
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/256/0756-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 U.S. 103",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11642843
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/420/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S. Ct. 1244",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        1777603
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/445/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S. Ct. 1371",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        1777746
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/445/0573-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 2604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.104747344146371e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9098395311850228
    },
    "sha256": "2d1d2a78799e5a7f3fe521d0435fea9d1d6cc99af242a6819b118b666fb267cd",
    "simhash": "1:120870742c204aeb",
    "word_count": 438
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Charles E. BLOCK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nOn January 3, 1980, a robbery occurred in Little Rock. That night the police arrested a suspect who made a statement implicating the appellee Charles E. Block. Two nights later an officer went to Block\u2019s home, without an arrest warrant, and arrested him. Block was charged by information with aggravated robbery, criminal attempt to commit capital murder, and theft of property.\nThe trial court, acting upon a pretrial motion to dismiss the charges, conducted a hearing on the validity of Block\u2019s arrest. On conflicting testimony the court found the arrest illegal, because when Block\u2019s mother opened the door in response to the officer\u2019s knock, the officer entered the house without an invitation and arrested Block. The trial judge, relying solely upon the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Payton v. New York, decided last April, dismissed the charges on account of the illegal arrest. Payton v. New York, 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980).\nThe State took an appeal toi this court, under Rule 29(l)(k), on the erroneous assumption that this is an interlocutory appeal. Of course it is not, an order of dismissal being final. The State\u2019s procedure, however, complies with Criminal Procedure Rule 36.10 (b) and (c), and we have retained jurisdiction because the case presents an issue of significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance. Rule 29(4)(b).\nThe trial judge manifestly misinterpreted the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Payton. It is unthinkable that a person who has committed murder, for example, should go scot free just because an officer enters his home without an invitation and arrests him without a warrant. The law is just the opposite. United States v. Crews, 100 S. Ct. 1244 (1980); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975); Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W. 2d 283 (1974). In the Payton case the court merely held that evidence is not admissible when it was obtained by an ofcer\u2019s illegal entry into a person\u2019s home without an arrest warrant. There was no limit that the charges should be dismissed. Quite the contrary, the court specifically stated in Footnote 34: \u201cThe issue is not whether a defendant must stand trial, because he must do so even if the arrest is illegal.\u201d\nThe judgment is reversed, and Block not yet having been in jeopardy, the cause is remanded for trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Mary Davies Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.",
      "Harold L. Hall, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Charles E. BLOCK\nCR 80-153\n606 S.W. 2d 362\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 13, 1980\nRehearing denied November 10, 1980\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Mary Davies Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.\nHarold L. Hall, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0671-01",
  "first_page_order": 699,
  "last_page_order": 700
}