Batchelor v. State ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 682
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-14-627
JENNIFER BATCHELOR Opinion Delivered December 3, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR 2012-0957-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Appellant Jennifer Batchelor appeals from convictions for driving while intoxicated,
first offense, and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Appellant’s sole point on appeal is
that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We affirm appellant’s conviction.
On September 9, 2011, appellant was stopped on Interstate 540 in Benton County by
Lieutenant Andy Lee. At the time of the traffic stop, Lieutenant Lee was employed by the
Bentonville Police Department.1 He testified that he had been commissioned by the Benton
County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy sheriff and, on the night he stopped appellant, he was
working drug interdiction for the county on the interstate. At the time he encountered
appellant, he was parked on the shoulder of the interstate with the emergency lights activated
while he was concluding a traffic stop. Appellant passed Lieutenant Lee’s car in the lane closest
to the shoulder. Lieutenant Lee testified that there was no traffic preventing her from moving
1
Interstate 540 has been redesignated Interstate 49.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 682
to the lane farthest away from his car, as required by law, so he pulled her over. He testified
that after he initiated the traffic stop, he smelled the odor of alcohol; asked appellant if she had
been drinking—to which she replied that she had; performed a field-sobriety test—which
appellant failed; and notified the Benton County DWI unit to come and complete the
investigation.
Appellant moved to suppress the evidence of her intoxication discovered at the traffic
stop because Lieutenant Lee, employed by the City of Bentonville, did not have a letter from
the Arkansas State Police allowing him to patrol the interstate. The circuit court denied her
motion to suppress and found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated, first offense, and
failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. On appeal, appellant challenges only the court’s
denial of her motion to suppress.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate courts
conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, recognizing that the trial
court has a superior opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses and reversing
findings of historical fact only if they are clearly erroneous. Martin v. State, 2013 Ark. App.
110, at 5, 426 S.W.3d 515, 518.
Arkansas law prohibits municipal police officers from patrolling “controlled-access
facilities”—which the parties do not dispute includes Interstate 540—unless authorized by the
director of the Arkansas State Police. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-8-106(h) (Supp. 2013). This law
does not apply to county sheriffs. And a deputy sheriff possesses all of the powers of, and may
perform any of the duties required by law to be performed by, the sheriff. Ark. Code Ann.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 682
§ 14-15-503 (Repl. 2013).
Appellant argues that Lieutenant Lee was a city police officer and, thus, had no
authority to conduct the traffic stop and the evidence should be suppressed. We held in
McKim v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 834, that a trial court erred in denying a defendant’s motion
to suppress where a city police officer who conducted a traffic stop on the interstate did not
have a letter from the Arkansas State Police authorizing the stop.2 There is no dispute in this
case that Lieutenant Lee did not have a letter from the director of the Arkansas State Police
authorizing his activities. The only issue in this case is whether the circuit court’s finding of
fact that Lee was acting on behalf of the county when he conducted the traffic stop is clearly
erroneous.
Lieutenant Lee testified that on the night of the traffic stop, he was working
interdiction on Interstate 540 to locate drugs in vehicles as a deputy sheriff commissioned by
the Benton County Sheriff’s Department. The State then introduced a Benton County
Sheriff’s Department identification card showing that Andy Lee was commissioned from
January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, as a deputy sheriff. He testified that, after
discovering that appellant appeared to be intoxicated, he notified Lieutenant Randy Allsup
of the Benton County Sheriff’s Department. Lieutenant Allsup came to the scene to continue
the investigation because, according to Lieutenant Lee, Lieutenant Allsup was specifically
working DWI investigations and Lieutenant Lee was working interdiction.
2
Unlike here, the officer in McKim did have a letter from the director of the Arkansas
State Police authorizing general patrol, but the letter specifically prohibited “selective traffic
enforcement or interdiction.” 2009 Ark. App. 834, at 2.
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 682
After conducting a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances,
reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error, and deferring to the superior position of
the circuit court to determine the credibility of witnesses and to resolve evidentiary conflicts,
we hold that the court did not clearly err and affirm its decision. Collins v. State, 2014 Ark.
App. 574, at 4, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___.
Affirmed.
WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Norwood & Norwood, P.A., by: Doug Norwood and Alison Lee, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4