The opinion
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 2
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-12-463
Opinion Delivered January 8, 2014
SHANE DONOVAN WADE APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT INDEPENDENCE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2011-27-1]
V.
HONORABLE JOHN DAN KEMP,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
The appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery by means of a firearm and was
sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty-five years’ imprisonment. His sole argument for
reversal is that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the seizure of his white ball
cap and shoes, which were introduced at trial to aid in identifying appellant, and that
evidence relating to these items should have been suppressed. We affirm.
On appeal of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we conduct an
independent review based on the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the
disputed evidence was unlawfully obtained. Mitchell v. State, 321 Ark. 570, 906 S.W.2d 307
(1995). We will reverse only if the circuit court’s ruling is clearly against the preponderance
of the evidence. Koster v. State, 374 Ark. 74, 286 S.W.3d 152 (2008). Viewed in that light,
the record shows that Detective Robert Moser was investigating an armed robbery that took
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 2
place in Batesville on February 15, 2011. The victims told the detective that two white men
armed with black guns came into their residence and awakened them in their bedrooms with
verbal threats, pointed pistols, and demands for valuables. The two men who committed the
robbery were described in detail during a subsequent interview; one man was described as
wearing a brown jacket and a brown ball cap with two chrome-colored metal spikes on each
side, while the other man was wearing a white ball cap and a shirt with horizontal stripes of
blue and white. Detective Moser then contacted the owner of a convenience store near the
robbery scene and asked to view the store’s surveillance video for the night in question.
Two white males attired in clothing matching the description given by the victims were seen
entering the store, making transactions, and leaving together in a white Cadillac.
Thereafter, Detective Moser received information that a Cadillac matching the one
seen in the surveillance video had been abandoned in Batesville. The vehicle was
impounded and searched pursuant to a warrant. It was found to contain appellant’s wallet
and identification, along with a blue-and-white striped shirt that matched the victim’s
description of the shirt worn by the robber and seen in the surveillance video.
Detective Moser sought appellant. Learning that appellant had a few hours earlier
been incarcerated on unrelated outstanding warrants, Detective Moser went to the property
room of the jail, where appellant’s clothing had been removed and stored when he was
outfitted with prison garb per police procedure at the time of his arrest. Detective Moser
found and seized appellant’s white ball cap and shoes from the property room and
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 2
photographed them. Appellant argues that this was an illegal search and seizure and that the
evidence should have been suppressed. We do not agree.
Here, there was no search that would implicate the Fourth Amendment. In South
Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), the Supreme Court noted that inventory
procedures developed in response to three distinct needs on the part of police departments:
1) the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody; 2) the
protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and 3) the
protection of the police from potential danger. See also Henderson v. State, 16 Ark. App. 225,
699 S.W.2d 419 (1985). When conducted pursuant to standard procedure, and where aimed
at securing or protecting the owner’s property, the Court has consistently sustained
inventories as exceptions to the search-warrant requirement. Id. Under similar
circumstances, the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that seizure of clothing lawfully taken
and inventoried, that was still in the possession of police, did not offend the Fourth
Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. Mitchell v. State, supra.
We think that the record sufficiently demonstrates that the clothing in question was
inventoried pursuant to standard procedure for reasons consistent with those stated in South
Dakota v. Opperman, supra, and we affirm.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree.
Walker Law Firm, PLLC, by: Kent Walker, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3