{
  "id": 1748388,
  "name": "Elbert Lee FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Foster v. State",
  "decision_date": "1983-02-28",
  "docket_number": "CR 83-23",
  "first_page": "473",
  "last_page": "475",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "278 Ark. 473"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "646 S.W.2d 699"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753652
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 2789,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3461296392183483
    },
    "sha256": "c87740f64b8e61144a189c8ba22f5cd9a90fa85381250224214ba257bcf2887b",
    "simhash": "1:3b4d9a27d70f5ac1",
    "word_count": 469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.352095+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elbert Lee FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nIn a non-jury trial appellant was convicted of theft by receiving and sentenced to four years imprisonment with two years suspended. Appellant questions \u201c[w]hether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant had committed a felony or a misdemeanor as defined\u201d by A.R.Cr.P., Rule 3.1. He then argues that the policemen lacked a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d to believe that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity which justified the stop and arrest.\nAt 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 \u201cother persons.\u201d As the officers drove by and looked, the appellant noticed them. He was \u201cacting suspicious\u201d 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 \u201cJ.A.X.\u201d and \u201cH.I.\u201d 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.\nWe 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:\nOur 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.\nHere, when we consider the factors surrounding the appellant\u2019s 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.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mike Smith, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elbert Lee FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 83-23\n646 S.W.2d 699\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 28, 1983\nMike Smith, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0473-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 505
}