Casey v. State , 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 103 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-15-676
JONATHAN SCOTT CASEY Opinion Delivered February 17, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-14-1935]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Jonathan Scott Casey appeals his conviction of Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”)
from the Benton County Circuit Court. On appeal, Casey argues that the circuit court erred
in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
On April 12, 2014, Officer B.J. Wilson with the Bella Vista Police Department
performed a traffic stop on Casey. After Casey failed two field-sobriety tests and registered .15
on a portable breathalyzer test (“PBT”), Officer Wilson arrested Casey for DWI and
transported him to the Benton County jail. Casey registered .13 on the breathalyzer at the jail.
Following his arrest, Casey filed a motion in the Benton County Circuit Court to
suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop. He argued that Officer Wilson did not
have reasonable suspicion to detain him. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion on
February 23, 2015.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
At the hearing, the State played an audio recording of a 911 call made on April 12,
2014, from Shannon Hadley. The transcript of the recording is as follows:
DISPATCHER: And . . . what was his name again?
HADLEY: His name is Scott. He’s beating on my front door now.
DISPATCHER: All right. There’s just such bad feedback. Scott what?
HADLEY: Scott. He’s beating on my front door now.
DISPATCHER: All right. Hang on just one second.
HADLEY: Don’t go out there. He’ll kick my door in.
DISPATCHER: (Inaudible.) I have three officers on the way right now. Give me
. . . just one second, okay?
HADLEY: Okay.
....
DISPATCHER: Do you know if he . . . has been drinking?
HADLEY: Yes.
DISPATCHER: He has been? And do you know if he has any weapons on him?
HADLEY: Yeah. He’s got a pistol.
DISPATCHER: He’s got a pistol on him? All right.
HADLEY: He did earlier, yeah.
DISPATCHER: Oh, he did earlier? Okay. Hang on just one second.
DISPATCHER: What type of . . . weapon does he have?
HADLEY: A .20 gauge.
DISPATCHER: A .20 gauge. He had a pistol?
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
HADLEY: Yes.
DISPATCHER: (Inaudible.) What is . . . you have a . . . is it your wife or
girlfriend with you?
HADLEY: Just a friend.
DISPATCHER: Just a friend? Is that a . . . it’s a lady friend?
HADLEY: Yes, ma’am.
DISPATCHER: Okay.
HADLEY: (Inaudible.)
DISPATCHER: He’s not inside the residence. He’s outside, correct?
HADLEY: Yeah.
HADLEY: He just got in his truck. Pulling . . . off now.
DISPATCHER: All right.
HADLEY: In a four-door Chevy pickup.
DISPATCHER: All right.
(inaudible)
DISPATCHER: Is he still pulling off?
HADLEY: Yeah. He . . . just did.
DISPATCHER: And you said in a . . . tan Chevy, right?
HADLEY: Yeah (inaudible).
DISPATCHER: Okay. That’s what I told them.
....
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
At this point in the proceedings, the State requested to replay the first minute of the recording
in hopes of clarifying inaudible portions.
HADLEY: Yes, ma’am. I’m at nine Finger Circle.
DISPATCHER: Yes, sir.
HADLEY: I want this guy off my property. He’s at my house.
DISPATCHER: All right. You have someone on your property at nine Finger
Circle and you want him off there?
HADLEY: Yes, ma’am.
DISPATCHER: All right. Do you know who he is?
HADLEY: Yes. He’s an ex-boyfriend of the person that’s here.
DISPATCHER: Okay. Is that . . .
HADLEY: Shannon.
DISPATCHER: Shannon? All right. Shannon.
HADLEY: Hadley.
DISPATCHER: Can you spell your last name for me, Shannon?
HADLEY: H-A-D-L-E-Y.
DISPATCHER: Okay. And what was his name again?
HADLEY: His name is Scott. He’s beating on my front door now.
DISPATCHER: All right. There’s just such bad feedback. Scott what?
HADLEY: Scott. He’s beating on my front door right now.
DISPATCHER: All right. Hang on one second.
HADLEY: Don’t go out there. He’ll kick my door in.
4
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
Following the replay of the recording, Hadley testified that he called 911 on April 12,
2014, because Scott Casey was banging on his door at 2:00 a.m. He stated that at that time,
Casey’s ex-wife, Ashley,1 was at his house. Hadley explained that he and Ashley had seen
Casey at a bar earlier that night and that he and Casey had gotten into a physical altercation.
He testified that someone at the bar called the police and that the police told him that they
were going to arrest Casey. He also testified that someone at the bar told him that Casey had
a pistol.
Jennifer Weber, the dispatcher on the 911 recording, testified that after she received
the call from Hadley, she communicated to officers what Hadley had told her. She testified
that she told officers that Casey had been drinking and that he may have had a pistol.
Officer Wilson testified that, on April 12, 2014, he received a complaint from a
dispatcher that a male in a tan truck at nine Finger Circle had been drinking and had a gun.
He explained that the dispatcher also transmitted a code indicating that the male was
“intoxicated.” Officer Wilson testified that he went to the residence along with Corporal
Whitehead and that they observed a tan truck less than one hundred yards away from nine
Finger Circle. He explained that he turned on his lights and made contact with Casey while
he was in the truck. He testified that, as he approached Casey, Casey placed a mint in his
mouth. He then asked Casey to exit the vehicle, and Casey complied. He testified that he
asked Casey whether he had any weapons and that Casey responded that he did not; however,
after he conducted a pat down of Casey, he discovered a knife. He stated that Officer
1
It is unclear from the record whether Ashley is Casey’s ex-girlfriend or ex-wife.
5
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
Whitehead saw an alcohol bottle in the floorboard of Casey’s truck and that Casey admitted
that he had been drinking. Officer Wilson testified that he performed three field-sobriety tests
on Casey and that Casey failed two of them. He also testified that he administered a PBT on
Casey. Officer Wilson then arrested Casey for DWI. He transported Casey to the Bella Vista
Police Department and conducted a blood-alcohol-content (“BAC”) test. The State
introduced into evidence the results of Casey’s BAC test, which showed that Casey registered
.13.
During his cross-examination of Howard, Casey’s counsel introduced into evidence
a form that Officer Wilson completed after he had arrested Casey. On the form, Officer
Wilson indicated that Casey registered .15 on the PBT and that he initiated contact with
Casey for “trespassing.” Officer Wilson explained that he wrote trespassing on the form
because he was “new.” He stated that he should have put “investigative stop for reason of
suspicion.”
Following the testimony, the court denied Casey’s motion to suppress. The court later
convicted Casey of DWI and sentenced him to one day in the Benton County jail. The court
also fined Casey $500 and ordered him to pay $300 in court costs and a $20 booking fee.
Casey appealed his conviction to this court. On appeal, Casey argues that the circuit court
erred in denying his motion to suppress the State’s evidence in violation of Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.1.
On review of a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court
reviews the circuit court’s factual determinations for clear error, while reviewing its legal
6
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
conclusions de novo. James v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 118, 390 S.W.3d 95. Consistent with this
standard, this court defers to the superior position of the circuit court to determine the
credibility of witnesses and to resolve evidentiary conflicts, but resolves legal questions
through an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances. Id.
Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1, a police officer lawfully present
in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he
reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a felony or a
misdemeanor involving danger of forcible injury to persons or damage to property. Under this
rule, the key word is “suspects,” and reasonable suspicion does not require that an officer
“rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” James, 2012 Ark. App. 118, at 8, 390 S.W.3d
at 100 (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)). “Reasonable suspicion” is
defined as a suspicion based on facts or circumstances, which of themselves do not give rise
to the probable cause requisite to justify a lawful arrest, but which give rise to more than a
bare suspicion. Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.1. The determination of whether an officer has reasonable
suspicion under the totality of the circumstances includes whether an officer has specific,
particularized, and articulable reasons to indicate that the person may be involved in criminal
activity. James, 2012 Ark. App. 118, 390 S.W.3d 95. Furthermore, the facts articulated must
be considered together as a whole and not in isolation. Id.
In this case, Casey argues that the circuit court should have suppressed the evidence
obtained through Officer Wilson’s traffic stop because Officer Wilson did not have reasonable
7
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
suspicion to detain him. In making his argument, Casey asserts that the facts of this case are
similar to the facts in Van Patten v. State, 16 Ark. App. 83, 697 S.W.2d 919 (1985).
In Van Patten, this court held that an officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain
the defendant after an anonymous person called 911 and reported that an individual in a
brown Jeep had created a disturbance at a party. Id. This court reasoned that the officer did
not have particular or articulable reasons to suspect that a felony or a misdemeanor involving
danger of injury to persons or property had been committed because the radio dispatch was
anonymous and provided “extremely general information about a ‘loud party’ and a ‘brown
Jeep.’” Id.
We hold that the facts in this case are unlike the facts in Van Patten and that Officer
Wilson had reasonable suspicion to detain Casey. This was not an anonymous tip. Hadley
identified himself and provided his telephone number and address. He further provided
specific information about the incident: that Casey had been beating on his door; that Casey
had been drinking and had a gun; and that Casey had left the residence in a tan Chevrolet
truck. Thus, Officer Wilson had specific, particularized, and articulable reasons to indicate
that Casey might have been involved in criminal activity.
Casey additionally asserts that because the dispatcher transmitted the “intoxication”
code when Hadley stated only that Casey had been “drinking,” Officer Wilson relied on false
information when he made the stop. Casey’s argument is unpersuasive. The distinction
between “intoxication” and “drinking” does not amount to false information. Accordingly,
8
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 98
we hold that Officer Wilson lawfully detained Casey, and the circuit court properly denied
his motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
Norwood & Norwood, P.A., by: Doug Norwood and Alison Lee, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Pamela Rumpz, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
9