Ark. Code Ann. § 23-13-217 (2026)
Enforcement officers
- The State Highway Commission shall name and designate enforcement officers charged with the duty of policing and enforcing the provisions of this subchapter.
- The enforcement officers shall have authority to enforce § 27-50-308 and the Omnibus DWI or BWI Act, § 5-65-101 et seq., and shall have authority to make arrests for violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter, orders, rules, and regulations of the commission and to serve any notice, order, or subpoena issued by any court, the commission, its secretary, or any employee authorized to issue same, and to this end shall have full authority with jurisdiction within the entire State of Arkansas.
-
-
For the purpose of determining whether any motor vehicle or the operator of that vehicle is in compliance with the rules and regulations of the commission with respect to safety of operations and equipment or any other provision of this chapter, provided the operator is engaged in intrastate or interstate movements on the highways, roads, and streets of this state and the operator or vehicle is subject to the rules and regulations, the enforcement officers shall be authorized to:
- Require the operator of the vehicle to stop, exhibit, and submit for inspection all documents required to be carried in that vehicle or by that operator pursuant to the regulations regarding the operator or operators of that vehicle, including, but not limited to, the operator or driver's duty status or hours-of-service records, bills of lading, waybills, invoices, or other evidences of the character of the lading being transported in the vehicle, as well as all records required to be carried by the regulations concerning that vehicle;
- Inspect the contents of the vehicle for the purpose of comparing the contents with bills of lading, waybills, invoices, or other evidence of ownership or of transportation for compensation; and
- Require the operator to submit the vehicle for a safety inspection pursuant to the rules and regulations, if deemed necessary by the officers.
- If the operator does not produce sufficient or adequate documents regarding his or her operation of the vehicle in conformance with the rules and regulations or is determined by the officers to be out of compliance with the rules and regulations, in addition to any other action that may be taken by the officers pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter, the officers shall be authorized to immediately place that operator out of service in accordance with the rules and regulations.
-
- If the operator does not produce sufficient or adequate documents regarding the vehicle in conformance with the rules and regulations, the vehicle is determined by the officers to be out of compliance with the rules and regulations.
- If the operator refuses to submit the vehicle to a safety inspection in conformance with the rules and regulations or if the officer or officers determine the vehicle is unsafe for further operation following a safety inspection in accordance with the rules and regulations, in addition to any other action that may be taken by the officers pursuant to this subchapter, the officers shall be authorized to immediately place that vehicle out of service in conformance with the rules and regulations.
-
For the purpose of determining whether any motor vehicle or the operator of that vehicle is in compliance with the rules and regulations of the commission with respect to safety of operations and equipment or any other provision of this chapter, provided the operator is engaged in intrastate or interstate movements on the highways, roads, and streets of this state and the operator or vehicle is subject to the rules and regulations, the enforcement officers shall be authorized to:
- It shall be the further duty of the enforcement officers to impound any books, papers, bills of lading, waybills, and invoices that would indicate the transportation service being performed is in violation of this subchapter, subject to the further orders of the court having jurisdiction over the alleged violation.
History. Acts 1955, No. 397, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-1760; Acts 1989, No. 306, § 1; 1997, No. 1026, § 1; 2003, No. 1121, § 1; 2015, No. 299, § 31.
Amendments. The 1997 amendment substituted “State Highway Commission” for “Arkansas Transportation Commission” in (a); inserted present (c); and redesignated former (c) and (d) as present (d) and (e), respectively.
The 2003 amendment inserted “or any other provision of this chapter” in (c)(1); and inserted “bills of lading, waybills, invoices, or other evidences of the character of the lading being transported in the vehicle” in (c)(1)(A); inserted present (c)(1)(B) and redesignated former (c)(1)(B) as present (c)(1)(C); deleted former (d) and redesignated former (e) as present (d); and made minor stylistic and related changes.
The 2015 amendment inserted “or BWI” in (b).
Case Notes
Inspection of Vehicles.
Where enforcement officers had grounds for a reasonable belief that the defendant's tractor-trailer rig was being operated in violation of the Motor Carrier Act, and the officers, without a warrant, “inspected” or “searched” the contents of the rig, there was no basis for questioning the validity of such routine inspection, which turned up a quantity of drugs, the inspection accomplished its proper administrative function and the fact that a criminal prosecution resulted did not vitiate the procedure or invalidate the statute. Carroll v. State, 276 Ark. 160, 634 S.W.2d 99 (1982).
There is no authority under this section to make a “routine check” of vehicle; rather it clearly recites that authorization to make a stop is dependent on a reasonable belief that a vehicle is in violation. Dominguez v. State, 290 Ark. 428, 720 S.W.2d 703 (1986).
Court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence where the defendant was stopped for a safety check and a drug dog alerted to drugs; the inspection officer had the right to search the truck for safety reasons and the driver admitted he had a radar detector. Willoughby v. State, 76 Ark. App. 329, 65 S.W.3d 453 (2002).
Search of the cargo of defendant's commercial truck pursuant to the Arkansas Motor Carrier Act did not violate the Fourth Amendment because warrantless inspections of commercial trucks advanced a substantial governmental interest and were necessary, and the Act provided a permissible warrant substitute as its reach was limited to certain commercial vehicles under §§ 23-13-203, 23-13-204, and 23-13-206; it provided notice to commercial truck drivers of the possibility of a roadside inspection by a designated enforcement officer under this section; it limited the scope of the enforcement officers' inspections to an examination solely for regulatory compliance under subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(1)(B) of this section; and although the Act did not designate specific times when the enforcement officers could conduct inspections, such a limitation would render the entire inspection scheme unworkable and meaningless. United States v. Ruiz, 569 F.3d 355 (8th Cir. 2009).
Cited: Hoskins v. Melton, 226 Ark. 336, 289 S.W.2d 884 (1956); Purolator Courier Corp. v. Arkansas Air Courier, 289 Ark. 455, 712 S.W.2d 892 (1986); United States v. Belcher, 288 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2002).