{ "id": 1159679, "name": "Raymond A. MARTINEZ v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Martinez v. State", "decision_date": "2003-02-28", "docket_number": "CR 01-1114", "first_page": "135", "last_page": "143", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "352 Ark. 135" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "98 S.W.3d 827" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "264 Ark. 920", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1669095 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/264/0920-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 U.S. 89", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11728831 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/379/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 Ark. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720821 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)" }, { "parenthetical": "citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/288/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9160802 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 Ark. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1886889 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/300/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 Ark. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1404482 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/350/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 Ark. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882774 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/303/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 Ark. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 236202 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Perry v. State, 303 Ark. 100, 794 S.W.2d 141 (1990)" }, { "parenthetical": "citing Perry v. State, 303 Ark. 100, 794 S.W.2d 141 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/329/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-705", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-106", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "(c)(B)(3)" }, { "page": "(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-105", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a716-81-301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 Ark. 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1604789 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/331/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 Ark. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1655474 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/334/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 Ark. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1342429 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/342/0066-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 697, "char_count": 13631, "ocr_confidence": 0.71, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.78078655242355e-08, "percentile": 0.3608540497920921 }, "sha256": "f9b89a62c0f4a5cc0ffa9a609082a00a73e8f9698eb4999d2d32bf8b17b0ec9b", "simhash": "1:bf2802f001c681eb", "word_count": 2265 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:39:04.439665+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Raymond A. MARTINEZ v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Judge.\nAppellant Rayudge. aggravated robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. On appeal, he challenges the circuit court\u2019s order denying his motion to suppress on three separate grounds. Martinez argues that the officer who detained him was outside his territorial jurisdiction and without statutory authority to arrest him. He also contends that neither his arrest nor the subsequent search of his vehicle was supported by probable cause. This appeal was certified to us by the Arkansas Court of Appeals pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. l-2(b)(4), (5) (2002). We find no error and affirm.\nShane Williams was shot and killed by Pam Sowell on January 21, 2000, when he attempted to rob Buddy\u2019s Place, a convenience store in the City of Ward owned by Pam and her husband, Alan Sowell. Mr. Sowell, who was also on the premises at the time of the attempted robbery, called 911 after the shooting at 8:39 p.m. He told the operator that a suspect had been shot and was in need of an ambulance. Mr. Sowell also stated that someone else was in the parking lot and a kid was outside the store.\nOfficer Don Sims of the Austin Police Department was on a routine traffic stop when he heard the radio report that somebody had been shot at Buddy\u2019s Place. Officer D. Sims immediately responded to the call and asked if the Ward Police Department needed his assistance. His brother, Eric Sims, who was a police officer with the neighboring City of Ward, answered affirmatively. According to the 911 operator\u2019s call logs, Officer Eric Sims was the first officer to arrive at Buddy\u2019s Place. He checked in from the store at 8:41 p.m. \u2014 just two minutes after the 911 call was received. Meanwhile, his brother was en route to the store. At the suppression hearing, Officer D. Sims testified that he was three minutes away from Buddy\u2019s Place. Upon arriving at the scene, he did not see any police vehicles. He also testified about hearing that another suspect armed with a pistol and disguised with a ski mask was still at the scene.\nAs Officer D. Sims approached Buddy\u2019s Place, he saw a white Mazda leaving the store\u2019s parking lot. He radioed to dispatch that he was going to stop the vehicle. Another police officer with the Ward Police Department, Patty Andolina, also responded to the initial 911 call. While nearing the scene, she happened to be right behind Officer D. Sims and approved his request to make a stop. Officer D. Sims proceeded to make the stop, and ordered the driver to exit the vehicle and walk slowly back toward him. Next, the police officer ordered the driver, Raymond Martinez, to get down on the ground. Martinez complied, whereupon Officer D. Sims handcuffed him and did a pat-down search for weapons. No weapons were found, and Martinez was placed in the back of the officer\u2019s patrol car.\nAccording to the radio logs, Officer D. Sims reported at 8:45 p.m. that he had a subject in his vehicle. He asked Martinez what he was doing at Buddy\u2019s Place and whether he knew what was going on. Martinez responded that he was going into the store to get a coke, but a man told him to leave. Officer D. Sims advised Martinez that he would be released as soon as everything was straightened out. Then, the officer drove back to Buddy\u2019s Place and informed Officer E. Sims that he had a suspect in his vehicle.\nIn the meantime, after Officer Andolina approved the stop by Officer D. Sims, she continued to the crime scene. At the scene, Officer Andolina interviewed an eyewitness, Terry Colbert. This interview took place within ten minutes of her arrival on the scene. Additionally, Officer D. Sims had already returned to the store with Martinez in the back seat of his patrol car. Colbert gave the following description of the fleeing suspect: A darlc-headed male, wearing dark clothes and baggy pants. Colbert further stated that he saw the suspect leave like \u201ca bat out of hell\u201d in a white vehicle. With that information, Officer Andolina approached Officer D. Sims\u2019s patrol car, opened the door, and visually confirmed that Martinez matched the description given by Colbert.\nShortly thereafter, at 8:53 p.m., Chief Deputy Mike Coffman of the Lonoke County Sheriffs Department arrived on the scene. He began to take pictures of the crime scene, including the white Mazda driven by the subject. When Deputy Coffman got to the Mazda, he reached through an open window and picked up a wallet lying on the passenger seat. The deputy opened the wallet and saw a picture ID that resembled Shane Williams \u2014 the victim-perpetrator. According to the radio logs, Deputy Coffman called in the name shown on the ID to check for warrants at 9:18 p.m. The wallet was seized and turned over to a Ward police officer.\nDeputy James Kulesa of the Lonoke County Sheriffs Department also assisted in the investigation of the attempted robbery at Buddy\u2019s Place. He interviewed Martinez at the Ward Police Department beginning at 10:47 p.m., or about two hours after the initial 911 call. During the interview, Martinez made statements implicating himself in the crime.\nSubsequently, Martinez entered a negotiated plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years imprisonment. The circuit court, however, allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea due to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Prior to trial, Martinez moved to suppress all evidence obtained after he was arrested, including the incriminating statements made at the police station. He argued that Officer Don Sims was without statutory authority to make the arrest and that the arrest and search were made without probable cause and in violation of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. After a hearing, and subsequent briefing, the circuit court denied Martinez\u2019s motion to suppress and a jury trial ensued. Martinez was convicted of aggravated robbery, and this appeal followed.\nWhen a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to suppress is challenged on appeal, our court makes an independent examination of the issue based on the totality of the circumstances and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Arnett v. State, 342 Ark. 66, 27 S.W.3d 721 (2000). The trial court\u2019s ruling will only be reversed if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Green v. State, 334 Ark. 484, 978 S.W.2d 300 (1998); Travis v. State, 331 Ark. 7, 959 S.W.2d 32 (1998).\nIt is well settled in Arkansas that a law enforcement officer cannot make a warrantless arrest outside of the territorial limits of his jurisdiction without statutory authority. Arnett v. State, 342 Ark. 66, 27 S.W.3d 721 (2000). This court has announced the four instances where the General Assembly has delegated authority for law enforcement officers to make an arrest outside of their jurisdiction: (1) \u201cfresh pursuit\u201d cases under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a716-81-301 (1987); (2) when the police officer has a warrant for arrest, as provided by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-105 (1987); (3) when a local law enforcement agency requests an outside officer to come into the local jurisdiction and the outside officer is from an agency that has a .written policy regulating its officers when they act outside their jurisdiction, as stated in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-106(3), (4) (Supp. 2001); and (4) when a county sheriff requests that a peace officer from a contiguous county come into that sheriffs county and investigate and make arrests for violations of drug laws pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-705 (Repl.1993). See Henderson v. State, 329 Ark. 526, 953 S.W.2d 26 (1997) (citing Perry v. State, 303 Ark. 100, 794 S.W.2d 141 (1990)). According to Martinez, and conceded by the State, only the third exception is applicable to this case.\nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-106(c)(B)(3), (4) (Supp. 2001), an officer may make an arrest outside his jurisdiction if (1) he is acting \u201cat the request of or with the permission of the municipal or county law enforcement agency having jurisdiction in the locale where the officer is assisting or working by request,\u201d and (2) the extrajurisdictional officer\u2019s agency has a \u201cwritten policy on file regulating the actions of its employees relevant to law enforcement activities outside its jurisdiction.\u201d Under this two-pronged analysis, Martinez concedes that the Austin police officer was acting at the request and with the permission of the local agency. He maintains, however, there was no evidence that the Austin Police Department had a written policy regulating its officers when they act outside their jurisdiction.\nMartinez is mistaken in his argument under this point. The circuit court made a specific finding in its written opinion attached to the order denying the motion to suppress that the \u201c[Austin police officer\u2019s] city does have a policy and procedure about law enforcement assistance to and from his city.\u201d The record in this case also reflects that the State produced a copy of the Austin Police Department\u2019s written policy and procedure on extrajurisdictional activities. Here, the local law enforcement agency requested the assistance of an outside officer, and that officer\u2019s law enforcement agency had the statutorily mandated written policy. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-106(3), (4). Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Austin police officer was acting outside his territorial jurisdiction without the requisite statutory authority. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court\u2019s denial of the motion to suppress was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nFor his second point on appeal, Martinez contends that his arrest was not supported by probable cause and amounted to an illegal seizure in violation of both the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Specifically, he asserts that the \u201cfirst credible evidence that officers had that the Appellant had any involvement in the incident\u201d developed forty-five minutes after Martinez was detained, when \u201cChief Deputy Coffman reached into the appellant\u2019s vehicle and discovered a wallet belonging to the decedent Williams.\u201d We disagree.\nProbable cause exists where there is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious person to believe that a crime has been committed by the person suspected. Howell v. State, 350 Ark. 552, 89 S.W.3d 343 (2002); Ross v. State, 300 Ark. 369, 779 S.W.2d 161 (1989). In assessing the existence of probable cause, this court\u2019s review is liberal and is guided by the rule that probable cause to arrest without a warrant does not require the degree of proof sufficient to sustain a conviction. Howell v. State, 350 Ark. 552, 89 S.W.3d 343 (2002); Baxter v. State, 324 Ark. 440, 922 S.W.2d 682. However, mere suspicion is not enough to support a finding of probable cause to arrest. Howell v. State, 350 Ark. 552, 89 S.W.3d 343 (2002); Roderick v. State, 288 Ark. 360, 705 S.W.2d 433 (1986)(citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)). Probable cause to arrest without a warrant exists when facts and circumstances within the officers\u2019 collective knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested. Howell v. State, supra.\nIn this case, Officer D. Sims stopped Martinez within a couple of minutes of the 911 call. At the time of that stop, it was dark and law enforcement officers already knew that there had been an attempted aggravated robbery at Buddy\u2019s Place. They also knew that there were at least two suspects, one having been shot by the store owner. The officers were told the second suspect was armed and wearing a ski mask. When Officer D. Sims arrived at the store, the only vehicle seen leaving the crime scene was a white Mazda driven by Martinez. Additionally, ten minutes after the stop, Officer Andolina took a statement from an eyewitness who described the second suspect and the suspect\u2019s car. The eyewitness\u2019s description matched Martinez and his vehicle.\nThe information outlined above, which is sufficient to constitute probable cause, was available to police officers prior to the search of Martinez\u2019s vehicle. Because the record reflects that probable cause developed before Chief Deputy Coffman found the wallet in Martinez\u2019s vehicle, we conclude that the second argument on appeal is without merit.\nIn his third and final point on appeal, Martinez contends that the search of his vehicle was not supported by probable cause. Specifically, he argues that the moment Chief Deputy Coffman\u2019s \u201chand breached the interior of that vehicle and grabbed that wallet probable cause had to exist.\u201d As we have already concluded in connection with his second point, probable cause developed before the search of Martinez\u2019s vehicle. Accordingly, Martinez\u2019s last point is also without merit.\nAffirmed.\nBuddy\u2019s place was previously known as \u201cDude\u2019s Place.\u201d\nThis situation is to be contrasted with one where an officer is acting outside his or her territorial jurisdiction and none of the statutory grounds for making an extraterritorial arrest appear to apply to the facts of the case. In the latter situation, the issue becomes whether the local officer is present in his or her capacity as a law enforcement officer and participates in making the arrest. See Logan v. State, 264 Ark. 920, 576 S.W.2d 203 (1979).", "type": "majority", "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Patrick J. Benca; and Hampton & Larkowski, by: Mark P. Hampton, for appellant.", "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David J. Davies, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Raymond A. MARTINEZ v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 01-1114\n98 S.W.3d 827\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 28, 2003\nPatrick J. Benca; and Hampton & Larkowski, by: Mark P. Hampton, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David J. Davies, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0135-01", "first_page_order": 157, "last_page_order": 165 }