{
  "id": 8717197,
  "name": "Alan Loyd BREWER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brewer v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-06",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-214",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "4",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "286 Ark. 1"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "688 S.W.2d 736"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "278 Ark. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1748155
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/278/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668980
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "678 S.W.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879959
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0425-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 4624,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.378393870314954e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9591620978674819
    },
    "sha256": "9c5baa2771c590cd3f7772c0003314581d9bfe6588a1d3a2e7bd150923c0bebc",
    "simhash": "1:7b2a50e3062cf250",
    "word_count": 770
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:09.553890+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alan Loyd BREWER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, second offense, and sentenced to 90 days in jail, fined $500 plus costs, and his driver\u2019s license was suspended for one year. It is from that conviction that this appeal is brought. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29(1)(a).\nThe appellant was arrested by two auxiliary deputies in Brinkley, Arkansas. The deputies issued a citation charging the appellant with DWI. No other information was filed against the appellant, nor was he charged in open court with the offense.\nPrior to the trial, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that his arrest was illegal. The basis of his contention was that the auxiliary deputies were not under the direct supervision of a law enforcement officer when the arrest was made. That motion was denied.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, the appellant renewed his motion and further contended that he had not been legally charged with an offense. After hearing evidence on the lack of supervision of the deputies, the court refused to dismiss the charges, but held that the arrest was illegal and was therefore made with the authority of a private citizen only. The appellant\u2019s first argument on appeal is that the court erred when it tried the appellant when he had not been formally charged with an offense. We agree.\nArkansas Stat. Ann. \u00a7 42-1405 (Supp. 1983) provides:\n(a) An auxiliary law enforcement officer shall have the authority of a police officer . . . when the auxiliary law enforcement officer is performing an assigned duty and is under the direct supervision of a full-time certified law enforcement officer.\n(b) When not performing an assigned duty and when not working under the direct supervision of a full-time certified law enforcement officer, an auxiliary law enforcement officer shall have no authority other than that of a private citizen.\nAny auxiliary law enforcement officer who is not supervised as required \u201cshall not take any official action as a law enforcement officer and any action taken shall be held as invalid.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 42-1403 (Supp. 1983) (emphasis added). The evidence at trial was that the deputies turned on their blue lights and spotlights and pursued the vehicle driven by the appellant. After determining that the appellant was intoxicated, the deputies issued a traffic citation charging him with DWI. The deputies\u2019 conduct was unquestionably an \u201cofficial action as law enforcement officers\u201d as provided by the statute, and must be held invalid.\nWhile it is true that a private citizen may make an arrest when the citizen believes that a felony has been committed, Ark. R. Crim. P. 4.1(b); Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-404 (Repl. 1977), there is no similar authority to arrest for a misdemeanor. Since DWI, second offense, is a misdemeanor, the unsupervised auxiliary deputies did not have the authority as citizens to make the arrest and issue the citation. Thus the appellant was never properly charged with an offense.\nArticle 2, \u00a7 8 of the Arkansas Constitution provides that \u201c [n]o person shall be held to answer a criminal charge unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in . . . cases such as the General Assembly shall make cognizable by justices of the peace, and courts of similar jurisdiction . . .\u201d\nAmendment 21 to the Arkansas Constitution provides that offenses which had to be filed by grand jury indictment may now be filed by an information by the prosecuting attorney.\nThe General Assembly conferred upon law enforcement officers the authority to charge a person with a misdemeanor DWI offense by issuing a citation. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-2508 (Supp. 1983); Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984), supplemental opinion, 283 Ark. 434, 678 S.W.2d 395 (1984); Thompson v. City of Little Rock, 264 Ark. 213, 570 S.W.2d 262 (1978). However, the auxiliary deputies, lacking the proper authority, were unable to lawfully charge the appellant with the offense of DWI. We follow the general rule as enunciated in Clayborn v. State, 278 Ark. 533, 647 S.W.2d 433 (1983) that a party \u201ccannot be found guilty of a crime with which he was never charged.\u201d\nAccordingly the trial court\u2019s verdict is reversed and the charge is dismissed. Our holding makes it unnecessary to address the other issues raised by the appellant.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Larry W. Horton, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Dep. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alan Loyd BREWER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-214\n688 S.W.2d 736\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 6, 1985\nLarry W. Horton, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Dep. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 27,
  "last_page_order": 30
}