Ark. Code Ann. » Title 12 Chapter 08
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106 (2026)

Division of Arkansas State Police — Duties and powers — Restrictions — Municipal police barred from patrolling certain highways

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. It shall be the duty of the Division of Arkansas State Police to:
      1. Patrol the public highways, make arrests, and enforce the laws of this state relating to motor vehicles and the use of the state highways;
      2. Establish, maintain, and enforce a towing rotation list to assist in clearing highways of motor vehicles which have been involved in accidents or abandoned;
      3. Assist in the collection of delinquent motor vehicle license taxes and the collection of gasoline and other taxes that are required by law; and
      4. Determine when, if possible, a person or persons are the cause of injury to any state highway or other state property and arrest all persons criminally responsible for injury to any state highway or other state property and bring them before the proper officer for trial.
    2. The Director of the Division of Arkansas State Police may promulgate necessary rules to carry out the purpose and intent of subdivision (a)(1)(B) of this section.
  2. The Division of Arkansas State Police shall be conservators of the peace and as such shall have the powers possessed by police officers in cities and county sheriffs in counties, except that the Division of Arkansas State Police may exercise such powers anywhere in this state.
  3. The Division of Arkansas State Police shall have the authority to establish a Crimes Against Children Division, either through transfer or by contract, to conduct child abuse investigations, to administer the Child Abuse Hotline, and, when consistent with rules promulgated by the Division of Arkansas State Police, to provide training and technical assistance to local law enforcement in conducting child abuse investigations.
  4. The police officers shall have all the power and authority of the State Fire Marshal and shall assist in making investigations of arson, § 5-38-301, and such other offenses as the director may direct and shall be subject to the call of the circuit courts of the state and the Governor.
  5. However, this chapter shall not be construed so as to take away any authority of the regularly constituted peace officers in the state, but the Division of Arkansas State Police shall cooperate with them in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the state and assist such officers either in the enforcement of the law or apprehension of criminals.
  6. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as to authorize any officer of the Division of Arkansas State Police to serve writs unless they are specifically directed to the Division of Arkansas State Police, or an officer thereof, by the issuing authority.
  7. No officer or member of the Division of Arkansas State Police shall ever be used in performing police duties on private property in connection with any strike, lockout, or other industrial disturbance.
      1. The following law enforcement officers are prohibited from patrolling controlled-access facilities except as may be authorized by the director:
        1. A municipal police officer;
        2. An officer established under § 14-42-401 et seq. [repealed];
        3. A city marshal; and
        4. A constable.
      2. The director may withdraw any previously issued authorization to patrol controlled-access facilities.
        1. The director shall promulgate rules in accordance with the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., to establish criteria for granting or withdrawing authorization to patrol controlled-access facilities.
        2. In adopting the rules described in subdivision (h)(1)(C)(i) of this section, the director at a minimum shall take into consideration the following factors:
          1. Public safety;
          2. Training of the law enforcement officers;
          3. Size of the law enforcement agency;
          4. Financial impact;
          5. Abuse of police power; and
          6. The types of roadways or highways that are controlled-access facilities for purposes of this section.
    2. The following law enforcement officers may patrol any service roads that are within their jurisdiction situated adjacent to controlled-access facilities:
      1. A municipal police officer; (B) An officer established under § 14-42-401 et seq. [repealed];
    3. This subsection shall not prohibit a municipal police officer, an officer established under § 14-42-401 et seq. [repealed], a city marshal, or a constable from responding to an accident or other emergency on a controlled-access facility.

(C) A city marshal; and

(D) A constable.

History. Acts 1945, No. 231, §§ 7, 8; 1963, No. 133, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 42-407, 42-408; Acts 1987, No. 509, § 1; 1997, No. 1240, § 7; 2001, No. 254, § 1; 2001, No. 441, § 1; 2001, No. 1697, § 4; 2007, No. 371, § 1; 2011, No. 741, § 1; 2019, No. 315, §§ 846, 847; 2019, No. 910, §§ 5762-5765.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2019, No. 150, § 1, repealed § 14-42-401 et seq.

Amendments. The 2007 amendment inserted “patrolling” preceding “certain” in the section heading; added the subsection designated (h)(1)(A); substituted “controlled-access facilities” for “limited access highways” in (h)(1)(A); added (h)(1)(B) and (h)(1)(C); substituted “controlled-access facilities” for “limited access highways” in (h)(2); and substituted “controlled-access facility” for “limited access highway” in (h)(3).

The 2011 amendment substituted “The following law enforcement officers” for “Municipal police” in the introductory paragraph of (h)(1)(A); inserted (h)(1)(A)(i) through (iv); deleted “for municipal police” following “authorization” in (h)(1)(B) and (h)(1)(C)(i); substituted “law enforcement officers” for “municipal police” in (h)(1)(C)(ii) (b) ; substituted “law enforcement agency” for “municipal police force” in (h)(1)(C)(ii) (c) ; substituted “The following law enforcement officers” for “Municipal police” in the introductory paragraph of (h)(2); inserted (h)(2)(A) through (D); and inserted “an officer established under § 14-42-401 et seq., a city marshal, or a constable” in (h)(3).

The 2019 amendment by No. 315 deleted “and regulations” following “rules” in (a)(2); and substituted “rules” for “regulations” in (c).

The 2019 amendment by No. 910, throughout the section, substituted “Division of Arkansas State Police” for “Department of Arkansas State Police”, and substituted “Division of Arkansas State Police” for “department”.

Cross References. Accident report forms for traffic accidents prepared by department, § 27-53-206.

Arkansas State Criminal Records Act, intent of, § 12-12-1502.

Authority of Medicaid Fraud Protection Unit, § 12-8-507.

Dissemination of criminal history information, § 12-12-1504.

Drivers' examinations conducted by, § 27-16-705.

Highways, roads, and streets, § 27-64-101 et seq.

Implementation of Arkansas State Criminal Records Act, § 12-12-1512.

Municipal police departments, § 14-52-101 et seq.

Reports of motor vehicle accidents made to, § 27-53-201 et seq.

Case Notes

Extraterritorial Authority.

Given that the statutory grant of authority to the state police in subsection (b) is equivalent to that possessed by municipal police officers and county sheriffs, a request for assistance by an Arkansas State Police Trooper is sufficient to give rise to extraterritorial arrest authority to a local law enforcement officer. White v. State, 41 Ark. App. 170, 850 S.W.2d 34 (1993).

City police officer lacked the authority under Arkansas law to make traffic stops and arrests on the Interstate. Nevertheless, because he had probable cause to arrest for the offense of reckless driving committed in his presence, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, with the result that the arrestee's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action failed as a matter of law. Rose v. City of Mulberry, 533 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2008).

Evidence obtained in a stop of defendant's vehicle for speeding on the interstate should have been suppressed because a municipal police department did not have the authority to make a selective-traffic enforcement type of traffic stop on the interstate; Arkansas State Police Director's letter in force at the time of the stop limited the authority to general patrol purposes only. McKim v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 834 (2009).

Lieutenant did not have a letter from the director of the Arkansas State Police authorizing his activities, but he was working interdiction on the interstate to locate drugs in vehicles as a deputy sheriff commissioned by the county sheriff's department, he produced his identification card showing his commission dates, and he testified that when he discovered defendant appeared to be intoxicated, he notified another lieutenant who was specifically working driving while intoxicated investigations; there was no clear error in the trial court's finding that the lieutenant was acting on behalf of the county when he conducted the traffic stop. Batchelor v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 682, 450 S.W.3d 245 (2014).

Investigatory Stop of Automobiles.

Officer held justified in stopping vehicle to investigate reason for slow speed and to determine age of operator. Perez v. State, 260 Ark. 438, 541 S.W.2d 915 (1976).

Towing Rotation List.

Circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the Arkansas State Police (ASP) in an action by a towing company and an employee for injunctive and declaratory relief asserting that the ASP policy prohibiting individuals with felony convictions from placement on the ASP Towing Rotation List was illegal under § 17-1-103. Plaintiffs' suit was barred by sovereign immunity, because § 17-1-103 did not apply to ASP, as ASP did not deal in licensing or regulating the occupation of towing within the meaning of § 17-1-103(f), as required for § 17-1-103 to apply; thus, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity applied. Steve's Auto Ctr. of Conway, Inc. v. Ark. State Police, 2020 Ark. 58, 592 S.W.3d 695 (2020).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Steve's Auto Ctr. of Conway, Inc., & Steven Gafner v. Arkansas State Police; Dir. William J. Bryant, Individually; & Capt. Alex Finger, Individually, 2020 Ark. 58 (Ark. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steve's Auto Ctr. of Conway, Inc., & Steven Gafner v. Arkansas State Police; Dir. William J. Bryant, Individually; & Capt. Alex Finger, Individually, 2020 Ark. 58 (Ark. 2020). · cites it 6× “Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106 (a)(1)(B) (Supp.”
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). · cites it 2× “, Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106 (b) (Supp. 1997) ("The Department of Arkansas State Police shall be conservators of the peace"); Del.”
Batchelor v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 682 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 12-8-106(h) (Supp.2013). This law does not apply to county sheriffs.”
White v. State, 850 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Although it is true that neither the statute nor the resolution specifies the Arkansas State Police as a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction, we think that such specification was unnecessary in light of the state-wide arrest power granted to the Arkansas State Police…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
Steve's Auto Ctr. of Conway, Inc., & Steven Gafner v. Arkansas State Police; Dir. William J. Bryant, Individually; & Capt. Alex Finger, Individually, 2020 Ark. 58 (Ark. 2020). “Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106 (a)(1)(B) (Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106(h) — 1 case
Batchelor v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 682 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). “Ark.Code Ann. § 12-8-106(h) (Supp.2013). This law does not apply to county sheriffs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.