Ark. Code Ann. § 16-82-201 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Mark James Chaney, Recent Developments: Arkansas Supreme Court Holds Execution of Search Warrants by Officers Outside of Their Territorial Jurisdiction Without Interagency Agreement or Local Cooperation Is Not Per Se Unreasonable Under Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 66 Ark. L. Rev. 1145 (2013).

Case Notes

Purpose.

There is no irreconcilable conflict between the procedural rule, ARCrp 13.1(b), and the substantive statute, subsection (a) of this section; the purpose of subsection (a), providing that warrants could issue “only” upon affidavit sworn to before a magistrate, was not to restrict the issuance of search warrants to affidavits, but to insure that the information presented to magistrates and upon which they relied, was sworn to and recorded to facilitate subsequent review. Costner v. State, 318 Ark. 806, 887 S.W.2d 533 (1994).

Authority of Officers.

It was not per se unreasonable for Sherwood officers to execute the search warrant, as the statute gave officers authorities to issue a warrant directed to any person in the state, and the warrant was properly issued by a judge in the Sherwood District Court, plus a warrant could be executed by any officer, and nothing indicated the officers purposefully avoided notifying other law enforcement agencies, and the court could not say that the execution of the warrant was per se unreasonable such that it warranted suppression. State v. Robinson, 2013 Ark. 425, 430 S.W.3d 105 (2013).

Compliance.

Burden was on the state to show compliance with this section if it wished to rely on affidavit and search warrant. Russ v. Camden, 256 Ark. 214, 506 S.W.2d 529 (1974).

Where affidavit for search warrant named the police informant, but did not state how the informant was acquainted with the affiant, so that there were no particular facts presented as to the informant's reliability, search warrant did not comply with this section or ARCrP 13.1 and search violated Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 15 and U.S. Const., Amend. 4 and 14. State v. Prue, 272 Ark. 221, 614 S.W.2d 221, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863, 102 S. Ct. 322, 70 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1981). But see Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 265, 658 S.W.2d 350 (1983).

Grounds for Issuance.

Evidence in affidavit insufficient to support issuance of warrant. Cockrell v. State, 256 Ark. 19, 505 S.W.2d 204 (1974); Patterson v. Lockhart, 513 F.2d 579 (8th Cir. 1975); Byars v. State, 259 Ark. 158, 533 S.W.2d 175 (1976).

Evidence furnished sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. Blankenship v. State, 258 Ark. 535, 527 S.W.2d 636 (1975); Maxwell v. State, 259 Ark. 86, 531 S.W.2d 468 (1976); Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993), appeal dismissed, 316 Ark. 249, 871 S.W.2d 372 (Ark. 1994).

There was no violation of defendants' Fourth Amendment rights when officers drove up the driveway to their house looking for a probationer in the area, discovered marijuana growing in plain view, and then obtained a search warrant as a result; further, under subsection (a) of this section, the argument that the warrant was issued by a magistrate in a separate county was of no merit. Lancaster v. State, 81 Ark. App. 427, 105 S.W.3d 365 (2003).

Jurisdiction.

Since subsection (a) expressly provides that a search warrant may be issued by any judicial officer, judicial officers are not limited to issuing search warrants only in the counties in which they were elected or appointed. Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993), appeal dismissed, 316 Ark. 249, 871 S.W.2d 372 (Ark. 1994).

City detective testified that, on the date of the search, he contacted the county sheriff's office and asked if they would send a couple of deputies to assist, and also contacted the city police department and obtained the search warrant, and the city detective was also the officer in charge of the pre-raid briefing, thus, the fact that the warrant was executed in the county's jurisdictional area did not require suppression of the evidence. State v. Fountain, 350 Ark. 437, 88 S.W.3d 411 (2002).

Osceola District Court judge had jurisdiction to issue a search warrant for a residence in the Chickasawba District. Wagner v. State, 2010 Ark. 389, 368 S.W.3d 914 (2010).

Malicious Prosecution.

The procuring and issuance of a search warrant, maliciously and without probable cause, will support an action for damages for malicious prosecution. Hardin v. Hight, 106 Ark. 190, 153 S.W. 99 (1913).

Oral Testimony.

This section eliminates from consideration any oral testimony unless it is reduced to writing and accompanied by affidavit. Cockrell v. State, 256 Ark. 19, 505 S.W.2d 204 (1974).

Cited: Durham v. State, 251 Ark. 164, 471 S.W.2d 527 (1971); Morris v. State, 252 Ark. 487, 479 S.W.2d 860 (1972); Powell v. State, 260 Ark. 381, 540 S.W.2d 1 (1976).