totality of the circumstances test in Arkansas

1987The result reached in the majority opinion is partially based on a misunderstanding of our decision in Toland v. State, supra. We upheld the warrant there under the totality of the circumstances test stated in Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 265 , 658 S.W.2d 350 (1983), and opined that the search could also have been upheld under the Leon rule.

1987The result reached in the majority opinion is partially based on a misunderstanding of our decision in Toland v. State, supra. We upheld the warrant there under the totality of the circumstances test stated in Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 265 , 658 S.W.2d 350 (1983), and opined that the search could also have been upheld under the Leon rule.

2015App. 84 Reliability of informants is determined by a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that is based on a three-factor approach adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Frette v. City of Springdale, 331 Ark. 103 , 959 S.W.2d 734 (1998) (citing State v. Bybee, 884 P.2d 906 (Or.

2015App. 84 Reliability of informants is determined by a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that is based on a three-factor approach adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Frette v. City of Springdale, 331 Ark. 103 , 959 S.W.2d 734 (1998) (citing State v. Bybee, 884 P.2d 906 (Or.

2015App. 84 Reliability of informants is determined by a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that is based on a three-factor approach adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Frette v. City of Springdale, 331 Ark. 103 , 959 S.W.2d 734 (1998) (citing State v. Bybee, 884 P.2d 906 (Or.

2006The reliability of informants is determined by a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that is based on a three-factored approach the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted in Frette v. City of Springdale, 331 Ark. 103 , 959 S.W.2d 734 (1998)(citing State v. Bybee, 884 P.2d 906 (Or.

2009However, this case was overturned by our supreme |ficourt in Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406 , 94 S.W.3d 892 (2003), where the court stated: Under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, the trial court concluded that this behavior gave rise to a reasonable suspicion.

2009However, this case was overturned by our supreme |ficourt in Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406 , 94 S.W.3d 892 (2003), where the court stated: Under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, the trial court concluded that this behavior gave rise to a reasonable suspicion.

2004Stephenson v. State, 71 Ark.

2001Stephenson v. State, 71 Ark.

2001Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13 , 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999) (citing Langford v. State, 332 Ark. 54 , 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998)).

2001Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13 , 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999) (citing Langford v. State, 332 Ark. 54 , 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998)).

1994It states that “during this investigation, affiant [Officer Stovall] received information from a person proven to be reliable on several occasions, who has observed cocaine being possessed, used, and sold at the above described residence.” In State v. Mosley, 313 Ark. 616 , 856 S.W.2d 623 (1993), we adopted the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis as follows: In reviewing a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances, and we reverse only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

1994It states that “during this investigation, affiant [Officer Stovall] received information from a person proven to be reliable on several occasions, who has observed cocaine being possessed, used, and sold at the above described residence.” In State v. Mosley, 313 Ark. 616 , 856 S.W.2d 623 (1993), we adopted the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis as follows: In reviewing a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances, and we reverse only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

1988We also find that this case should be affirmed under the good faith exception as set out in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 In Jackson v. State, 291 Ark. 98 , 722 S.W.2d 831 (1987), the court said that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in Leon was adopted in McFarland v. State, 284 Ark. 533 , 684 S.W.2d 233 (1985).

1985This search could also be upheld under the “good faith” exception to defects in search warrants as stated in United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984).

2024Baird v. State, 357 Ark. 508, 513 , 182 S.W.3d 136, 140 (2004); Hudson v. State, 316 Ark. 360, 364 , 872 S.W.2d 68, 70 (1997); Harris v. State, 2017 Ark.

2021Id.

2021In Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), the Court applied a totality-of-the-circumstances test to a suspicionless search of a parolee conducted pursuant to a California law that provided that as a condition for release, every prisoner eligible for state parole must agree to be subject to a search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer with or without a search warrant and with or without cause.

2021Id. at 427–28, 921 5 S.W.2d at 941.

2017Id., 43 S.W.3d at 164 .

2017Id., 43 S.W.3d at 164 .

2008The totality is subdivided into two main components, first, the statement of the officer and second, the vulnerability of the defendant.” Id. at 469-70 , 982 S.W.3d at 661.

2006Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , S.W.3d (2005) (rejecting a "special needs" analysis in favor of totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to determine whether warrantless DNA testing of sex offenders violated the Fourth Amendment).

2006Id.

2006Id.

2004Id. (citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1948)).

2004Id. (citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1948)).

2001Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13 , 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999) (citing Langford v. State, 332 Ark. 54 , 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998)).

2001Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13 , 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999) (citing Langford v. State, 332 Ark. 54 , 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998)).

1998Moore v. State, 323 Ark. 529 , 915 S.W.2d 284 (1996); State v. Mosley, 313 Ark. 616 , 856 S.W.2d 623 (1993).

1998Moore v. State, 323 Ark. 529 , 915 S.W.2d 284 (1996); State v. Mosley, 313 Ark. 616 , 856 S.W.2d 623 (1993).

1994Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983); State v. Blevins, 304 Ark. 388 , 802 S.W.2d 465 (1991).

1994Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983); State v. Blevins, 304 Ark. 388 , 802 S.W.2d 465 (1991).

1993This court held: [ W] e cannot hold that the facts corroborating the tip in the case at bar are sufficient in quality or quantity, under the totality of the circumstances test, to give rise to reasonable suspicion. 34 Ark.

1992Co. v. Biddle, 293 Ark. 142 , 732 S.W.2d 473 (1987), we reviewed most of our abnormally dangerous crossing cases and adopted a totality of the circumstances standard for determining when a crossing is abnormally dangerous and when warning devices should be installed, but in this case warnings already had been installed.

1992Co. v. Biddle, 293 Ark. 142 , 732 S.W.2d 473 (1987), we reviewed most of our abnormally dangerous crossing cases and adopted a totality of the circumstances standard for determining when a crossing is abnormally dangerous and when warning devices should be installed, but in this case warnings already had been installed.