Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (2026)

Purpose and intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. There is a critical need for judicial intervention and support for effective treatment programs that reduce the incidence of drug use, drug addiction, and family separation due to parental substance abuse and drug-related crimes. It is the intent of the General Assembly for this subchapter to enhance public safety by facilitating the creation, expansion, and coordination of drug court programs.
  2. The goals of the drug court programs in this state shall be consistent with the standards adopted by the United States Department of Justice and recommended by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and shall include the following key components:
    1. Integration of substance abuse treatment with justice system case processing;
    2. Use of a nonadversarial approach in which prosecution and defense promote public safety while protecting the right of the accused to due process;
    3. Early identification, with the use of a validated risk-needs assessement, of eligible moderate-to-high-risk participants and prompt placement of eligible participants;
    4. Access to a continuum of treatment, rehabilitation, and related services;
    5. Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs;
    6. A coordinated strategy among the judge, prosecution, defense, and treatment providers to govern offender compliance;
    7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant;
    8. Monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of program goals and effectiveness;
    9. Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning, implementation, and operation; and
    10. Development of partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness.
    1. Drug court programs are specialized court dockets within the existing structure of the Arkansas court system. Drug court programs offer judicial monitoring of intensive treatment and strict supervision of addicts in drug and drug-related cases.
    2. The creation of a drug court docket and the appointment of a circuit judge to that docket shall be approved by the administrative judge in each judicial circuit and made a part of the judicial circuit's administrative plan required by Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 14.
  3. Drug court program success shall be determined by the rate of recidivism of all drug court participants, including participants who do not graduate.

History. Acts 2003, No. 1266, § 2; 2007, No. 1022, § 3; 2011, No. 570, § 112.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2011, No. 570, § 1, provided: “The intent of this act is to implement comprehensive measures designed to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and contain correction costs.”

Amendments. The 2011 amendment, in (b)(3), inserted “with the use of a validated risk-needs assessment” and “moderate-to-high-risk”; and added (d).

Case Notes

Due Process.

Circuit court's order denying a petition for postconviction relief was reversed where drug-court participants were to be afforded the same protections as a probationer on revocation, the circuit court failed to hold a hearing prior to petitioner's expulsion from the drug-court program, and that failure amounted to a due-process violation. Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287, 497 S.W.3d 666 (2016).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2009–2018 · leading case: Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287 (Ark. 2016).
Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 8× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (Supp. 2015). 13 Cite as 2016 Ark.”
Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (1) (Repl.2006).”
Tornavacca v. State, 408 S.W.3d 727 (Ark. 2012). “§ 16-98-302 (Supp.2011). Once a defendant pleads guilty and agrees to take part in a drug-court program, the traditional adversarial roles of all involved in a particular case necessarily change and a team approach begins.”
King v. State, 549 S.W.3d 407 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (b)(7). King ultimately pleaded guilty to being in violation of her conditions of probation as alleged in the 2012 petition, and the trial court placed King back on probation.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302(b)(2) — 2 cases
Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (1) (Repl.2006).”
Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287 (Ark. 2016). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-302 (Supp. 2015). 13 Cite as 2016 Ark.”
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.