warrant requirement in Arkansas

2021See Steinmetz, supra; Wofford, supra (citing Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 (1984); Mincey, supra. The Supreme Court’s statements of the emergency exception reiterate that the emergency exception does not depend on the officers’ subjective intent or the seriousness of any crime they are investigating; rather, it requires only an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house is in need of immediate aid.

1992Finally, just as there is no murder scene exception to the warrant requirement, Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), we know of no exception permitting a general search of a wrecked car for evidence of ownership, at least when the identity of the driver is known. 3 The State’s contention that the search can be justified under the “plain view” doctrine is without merit.

1997The New York Court of Appeals suppressed the statement as the fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation, and the Supreme Court reversed regardless of the fact that the arrest was made in Harris’s home without a warrant in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

1997Thus, the entry was not covered by the exception to the warrant requirement discussed in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

2019Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 357, 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

2019Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 357, 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

2005Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 , 972 S.W.2d 222 (1998); Izell v. State, 75 Ark.

2005Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 , 972 S.W.2d 222 (1998); Izell v. State, 75 Ark.

2006Exceptions vitiating the warrant and probable-cause requirements include, inter alia, exigent circumstances, U.S. v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003), a search incident to arrest, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), consent, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), probationer and parolee searches, Samson v. California, U.S. (June 16, 2006), and "special needs" searches, Chandler, supra. From the information provided in your request for an opinion with respect to Question One and assuming that the activity undertaken is a "search," none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement appea

2005See, e.g., California v. Acevado, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (allowing for the warrantless search of a container located within an automobile, assuming there is probable cause for the search of said container, adopted in Arkansas in Green v. State, 334 Ark. 484 , 978 S.W.2d 300 (1998)); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (allowing for the warrantless seizure of evidence of the crime in “plain view”; adopted in Arkansas in Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 , 972 S.W.2d 222 (1998)); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (allowing for the war-rantless search of a person and the area in the immedia

2005Welch, supra; Opperman, supra. Neither Officer Roth-well nor Officer Simon had any record at all of what they discovered in their search of Kelley’s vehicle.

1989See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976); Snell v. State, 290 Ark. 503 , 721 S.W.2d 628 (1986); Reeves v. State, 20 Ark App. 17, 722 S.W.2d 880 (1987); Henderson v. State, 16 Ark.

2021Steinmetz v. State, 366 Ark. 222 , 234 S.W.3d 302 (2006).

2021Steinmetz v. State, 366 Ark. 222 , 234 S.W.3d 302 (2006).

2020Dortch, 2018 Ark. 135 , 544 S.W.3d 518 (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)).

2020Dortch v. State, 2018 Ark. 135 , 544 S.W.3d 518 (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)).

2015In Metz-ner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222 , 462 S.W.3d 650 , our supreme court stated that the collection and testing of a person’s blood constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thus, either a warrant must be obtained or an, exception to the warrant requirement must apply.

2015In Metz-ner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222 , 462 S.W.3d 650 , our supreme court stated that the collection and testing of a person’s blood constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thus, either a warrant must be obtained or an, exception to the warrant requirement must apply.

2010Baird, 357 Ark. 508 , 182 S.W.3d 136 .

2010Baird, 357 Ark. 508 , 182 S.W.3d 136 .

2009The circuit court also concluded that the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement, under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), did not apply.

2009The circuit court also concluded that the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement, under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), did not apply.

2006Exceptions vitiating the warrant and probable-cause requirements include, inter alia, exigent circumstances, U.S. v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003), a search incident to arrest, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), consent, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), probationer and parolee searches, Samson v. California, U.S. (June 16, 2006), and "special needs" searches, Chandler, supra. From the information provided in your request for an opinion with respect to Question One and assuming that the activity undertaken is a "search," none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement appea

1987Mincey v. Arizona, supra. Nonetheless, the Court in Thompson indicated that its holding in Mincey would not invalidate a consensual search under circumstances similar to those posed here, but that any such claim of valid consent would have to be measured against the standards of United States v. Matlock, supra, and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).

2005See, e.g., California v. Acevado, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (allowing for the warrantless search of a container located within an automobile, assuming there is probable cause for the search of said container, adopted in Arkansas in Green v. State, 334 Ark. 484 , 978 S.W.2d 300 (1998)); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (allowing for the warrantless seizure of evidence of the crime in “plain view”; adopted in Arkansas in Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 , 972 S.W.2d 222 (1998)); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (allowing for the war-rantless search of a person and the area in the immedia

1998Significantly, the State urges us, in interpreting the “plain-view” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, to hold that Arkansas’ constitutional requirements regarding that exception should be construed consistently with Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), because the Arkansas constitution provides no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment.

2005Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1975); Tillman v. State, 271 Ark. 552 , 609 S.W.2d 340 (1980).

1980See, e. g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1951); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , *603 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 202

2004The Arkansas Supreme Court recently stated: "The law is settled that the taking of blood by a law enforcement officer amounts to a Fourth Amendment search and seizure." Haynes v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___, 127 S.W.3d 456 , 461 (2003), citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Russey v. State, 336 Ark. 401 , 985 S.W.2d 316 (1999); Mills v. State, 322 Ark. 647 , 910 S.W.2d 682 (1995).

2001Indeed, the Court has recognized only a few such emergency conditions, see, e.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43 (1976) (hot pursuit of a fleeing felon); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 298-299 (1967) (same); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 770-771 (1966) (destruction of evidence); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509 (1978) (ongoing fire), and has actually applied only the "hot pursuit" doctrine to arrests in the home, see Santana, supra. Our hesitation in finding exigent circumstances, especially when warrantless arrests in the home are at issue, is particularly appr

2001Indeed, the Court has recognized only a few such emergency conditions, see, e.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43 (1976) (hot pursuit of a fleeing felon); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 298-299 (1967) (same); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 770-771 (1966) (destruction of evidence); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509 (1978) (ongoing fire), and has actually applied only the "hot pursuit" doctrine to arrests in the home, see Santana, supra. Our hesitation in finding exigent circumstances, especially when warrantless arrests in the home are at issue, is particularly appr

1980See, e. g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1951); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , *603 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 202

1985Citing Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 (1981) and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979), appellant contends on appeal that the warrantless search of his briefcase was unreasonable because of the expectation of privacy one has in containers such as briefcases. 2 However, in both Robbins and Sanders, investigatory, not inventory, searches were conducted, and the government was attempting to justify the searches of the containers under the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.

1982Relying on United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) and Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, the Court rejected the contention that the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement justifies the warrantless search of closed containers found inside the automobile.

2022Clingmon, 2021 Ark.