DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Court Opinions ›› Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001)
ARKANSAS v. KENNETH ANDREW SULLIVAN
No. 00-262 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 532 U.S. 769; 121 S. Ct. 1876; 149 L. Ed. 2d 994; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4118; 69 U.S.L.W. 3746; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4274; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5264; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2614; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2655; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 303 May 29, 2001, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. In November 1998, Officer Joe Taylor of the Conway, Arkansas, Police Department stopped respondent Sullivan for speeding and for having an improperly tinted windshield. Taylor approached Sullivan's vehicle, explained the reason for the stop, and requested Sullivan's license, registration, and insurance documentation. Upon seeing Sullivan's license, Taylor realized that he was aware of "'intelligence on [Sullivan] regarding narcotics.'" 340 Ark. 318, 16 S.W.3d 551-A, 318-B, 16 S.W.3d 551, 552 (2000). When Sullivan opened his car door in an (unsuccessful) attempt to locate his registration and insurance papers, Taylor noticed a rusted roofing hatchet on the car's floorboard. Taylor then arrested Sullivan for speeding, driving without his registration and insurance documentation, carrying a weapon (the roofing hatchet), and improper window tinting. After another officer arrived and placed Sullivan in his squad car, Officer Taylor conducted an inventory search of Sullivan's vehicle pursuant to the Conway Police Department's Vehicle Inventory Policy. Under the vehicle's armrest, Taylor discovered a bag containing a substance that appeared to him to be methamphetamine as well as numerous items of suspected drug paraphernalia. As a result of the detention and search, Sullivan was charged with various state-law drug offenses, unlawful possession of a weapon, and speeding. Sullivan moved to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle on the basis that his arrest was merely a "pretext and sham to search" him and, therefore, violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court granted the suppression motion and, on the State's interlocutory appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
The decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court is reversed. [The subjective intentions of individual police officers play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.]
|
|