probable cause hearing in Arkansas

2020Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986).

2010Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

2004Laime, supra; Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)).

2004Laime, supra; Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)).

1989The majority relies on Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), for the proposition that an anonymous tip will support the probable cause requirement if there is sufficient corroboration of the tip by independent observation by the police.

1989In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the United States Supreme Court said: [P]erhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable-cause standard is that it is a “practical, nontechnical conception.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 US 160, 176 , 93 L Ed 1879 , 69 S Ct 1302 (1949).

2013Anthony again tested positive for drugs at the probable-cause hearing, and the court found probable cause as to T.W.1 and placed a Cite as 2013 Ark.

2013Anthony 1 A probable-cause hearing was subsequently held as to T.W.2, and the mother failed to appear. 2 Cite as 2013 Ark.

2004Laime, supra; Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)).

2001Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964); Roderick v. State, 288 Ark. 360 , 705 S.W.2d 433 (1986)).

2003Laime, supra; Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993); Roderick v. State, 288 Ark. 360 , 705 S.W.2d 433 (1986)).

2003Laime, supra; Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143 , 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993); Roderick v. State, 288 Ark. 360 , 705 S.W.2d 433 (1986)).

1997Bradford involved an analysis of Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), where the United State Supreme Court held that “if police initiate interrogation after a defendant’s assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation in invalid.” 2 In Bradford, the appellant had not requested counsel, but counsel had nonetheless been appointed.

1996The United States Supreme Court addressed the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986).

2024Bailey, 2024 Ark. 87 , 687 S.W.3d 819 (declining to apply the probable-cause standard from United States v. Thabit, 56 F.4th 1145 (2023)).

2024Bailey, 2024 Ark. 87 , 687 S.W.3d 819 (declining to apply the probable-cause standard from United States v. Thabit, 56 F.4th 1145 (2023)).

2018App. 29 , 541 S.W.3d. 450 (holding that appellant did not preserve her argument on appeal that DHS should have provided notification to Indian tribes of proceedings; appellant raised the "possible" ICWA matter at the probable-cause hearing but never provided any more information about potential Indian heritage, and the circuit court had no reason to believe that a relationship to any Indian tribe actually existed).

2017A probable-cause hearing was held on October 13, 2015, and the circuit court found that emergency conditions existed that necessitated DHS’s continued custody of the Cite as 2017 Ark.

2017A probable-cause hearing was held on June 7, 2016, and in its June 29, 2016 order, the circuit court found that probable cause existed for M.H.’s removal “specifically, due [to] the custodian/grandmother allowing the juvenile to stay in a home that was not a suitable 2 Larry also “threw” a five-year-old child, according to M.H. 2 Cite as 2017 Ark.

2016App. 267 , 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007), where we affirmed the trial court’s closure of a dependency-neglect proceeding at the conclusion of the probable-cause hearing.

2016Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 , 42 S.W.3d 397 (2001).

2016Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 , 42 S.W.3d 397 (2001).

2016The court ordered that if a parent tested positive, failed to appear for the test, or compromised their hair such that it could not be tested, visitation would be suspended until the parent had a clean 2 Cite as 2016 Ark.

2016Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) provides that an adjudication hearing shall be held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof. 7 Cite as 2016 Ark.

2015Here, the officers had probable cause to arrest 5 To the extent that King contends that his flight from officers is not further evidence to be considered in a probable-cause analysis, we disposed of that issue in his first point on appeal. 10 Cite as 2015 Ark.

2014A probable-cause inquiry that requires an officer to have the foresight to know whether a driver will ultimately be convicted of a traffic offense before pulling that driver over is untenable. 5 Cite as 2014 Ark. 101 reasonable caution could believe that Robinson had violated either the red-light requirements set out in section 27-36-215 or the prohibition against glaring lights found in section 27-36-216.

2014At the probable-cause hearing, the circuit court Cite as 2014 Ark. 471 placed C.N. in Neal’s temporary custody.

2014At the probable-cause hearing in August 2011, the court authorized placement with Ms. Rogge Cite as 2014 Ark.

2013A review order was entered on September 5, 2012, in which the court noted that 1 A probable cause hearing was held on February 29, 2012. 2 Appellant pled guilty to two unrelated charges and was sentenced to a period of time in jail. 2 Cite as 2013 Ark.

2005As stated in Chatman v. State, 336 Ark. 323 , 985 S.W.2d 718 (1999): The statutory scheme for evaluating and treating a person who is dangerous to himself or others is laid out in the Code under the title "Commitment and Treatment of the Mentally Ill." See Ark.

2005As stated in Chatman v. State, 336 Ark. 323 , 985 S.W.2d 718 (1999): The statutory scheme for evaluating and treating a person who is dangerous to himself or others is laid out in the Code under the title "Commitment and Treatment of the Mentally Ill." See Ark.

2005In response, DHS cited Hathcock v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 347 Ark. 819 , 69 S.W.3d 6 (2002), in which our supreme court held that the purpose of the time limit on continuances for adjudication hearings was clear, 1 and that the limited continuance provision of the juvenile code controlled rather than Rule 40(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the specific purpose of expediting hearings involving children in out-of-home placements.

2005In response, DHS cited Hathcock v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 347 Ark. 819 , 69 S.W.3d 6 (2002), in which our supreme court held that the purpose of the time limit on continuances for adjudication hearings was clear, 1 and that the limited continuance provision of the juvenile code controlled rather than Rule 40(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the specific purpose of expediting hearings involving children in out-of-home placements.

2002Espinosa involved testimony from a previous trial where the exact issue and motive to cross-examine existed. 317 Ark. 198 , 876 S.W.2d 569 .

2002Espinosa involved testimony from a previous trial where the exact issue and motive to cross-examine existed. 317 Ark. 198 , 876 S.W.2d 569 .

2002In Scott & Johnson, we held that the motive to develop testimony at a probable-cause hearing was not similar to the motive to cross-examine at a trial. 272 Ark. 88 , 612 S.W.2d 110 .

2002In Scott & Johnson, we held that the motive to develop testimony at a probable-cause hearing was not similar to the motive to cross-examine at a trial. 272 Ark. 88 , 612 S.W.2d 110 .

2001App. 178 , 712 S.W.2d 326 (1986), this court reasoned that a probable-cause hearing on the underlying new offense serves the same purpose as a preliminary hearing on the suspension revocation.

2001Id.