{
  "id": 922633,
  "name": "Charles MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-01-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-526",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 Ark. 38"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "936 S.W.2d 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "286 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717197
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/286/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 12-9-303",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a) and (b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 4583,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.03253819045048573
    },
    "sha256": "8b5c12aa78c66eb0620ef93c20a8729385322eb7038391da41f803d4105f180b",
    "simhash": "1:f5a8a7e47a30945b",
    "word_count": 766
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:41.435320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThe court of appeals certified this appeal to us because it involves the interpretation and construction of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 12-9-303(a) and (b) (Repl. 1995), as that statute establishes the scope of an auxiliary law enforcement officer\u2019s authority.\nFactually, this case arises from auxiliary officer Danny Hill\u2019s observation of appellant Charles Martin driving his pickup truck too fast around a curve and causing the truck to slide into a telephone pole, breaking the pole in half. Hill was not on duty at the time, but he radioed the sheriffs office and told the office dispatcher about the accident, and advised the dispatcher that he would check to see if anyone was hurt. Hill then saw the vehicle backup and drive off. He radioed the sheriff s office, again, contacting Deputy Sheriff Roy Smith, who instructed Hill to follow the truck and not let it get away. Hill followed Martin\u2019s vehicle until it pulled into a driveway. When Hill pulled in behind Martin\u2019s pickup, Martin departed his truck and started to \u201ctake off,\u201d but Hill held him until Deputy Smith arrived on the scene.\nMartin was arrested and charged with (1) refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, (2) DWI second offense, and (3) leaving the scene of an accident. Martin was convicted in municipal court, and he appealed to circuit court where he moved to suppress the evidence, arguing his arrest by Hill was unlawful because Hill was not acting under legal authority. The circuit court denied Martin\u2019s motion, and afterwards, he was convicted of all three charges. On appeal, his sole point for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in finding Hill was validly performing an \u201cassigned duty\u201d at the time of Martin\u2019s arrest.\nMartin relies upon \u00a7 12-9-303 which in relevant part provides as follows:\n(a) An auxiliary law enforcement officer shall have the authority of a police officer as set forth by statutes of this state when the auxiliary law enforcement officer is performing an assigned duty and is under 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.\nMartin does not contend Hill was not acting under the direct supervision of a full-time law enforcement officer. Instead, relying largely on provision (b) above, Martin argues Hill was not on duty or patrol when he observed Martin\u2019s accident; nor was he on an assigned duty as an auxiliary police officer. Martin further points to Hill\u2019s testimony where Hill conceded that he (and his wife) was en route to a restaurant, was not in uniform or in a police car, and had not previously been assigned to do anything as a police officer. Martin argues that, because Hill was not performing an assigned duty when he observed Martin\u2019s actions, Hill had no more authority than a private citizen who cannot make a misdemeanor arrest, such as the one made of Martin. See Brewer v. State, 286 Ark. 1, 688 S.W.2d 736 (1986).\nIn reading provisions (a) and (b) above, we find no language that requires that the auxiliary officer be \u201con' duty\u201d before he or she could be authorized and activated to perform law enforcement functions. Both Hill and Deputy Sheriff Smith testified that auxiliary officers for the White County Sheriff s Office are not assigned regular work hours, but instead, are required to work at least sixteen hours a month and report into the supervisory officer whenever they can work and receive assignments. Smith stated that auxiliary officers can be called out at any time in unusual situations. In fact, it is these type of situations, we believe, the General Assembly had in mind when it provided for auxiliary officers to assist the primary police force in Arkansas communities.\nHere, supervising officer Smith specifically assigned Hill the duty to follow Martin\u2019s pickup after Hill saw the pickup leave the scene of the accident. Hill followed the assignment that Smith gave him until Smith arrived at the destination where Hill had intercepted and was holding Martin. Because we conclude auxiliary officer Hill\u2019s actions were in compliance with \u00a7 12-9-303(a) and (b), we affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Meurer, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-526\n936 S.W.2d 75\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1997\nRobert Meurer, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}