holding that several anonymous calls implicating appellant in robbery were “unverified anonymous telephone tips” that did “not support or contribute to a probable cause determination”
How later courts described this case
- holding that several anonymous calls implicating appellant in robbery were “unverified anonymous telephone tips” that did “not support or contribute to a probable cause determination”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. I join the portion of Justice Newbern’s dissent finding that the police lacked probable cause to arrest Bell on January 8. I write separately to dissent from the majority’s significant announcement, without explanation and completely in the form of obiter dictum, that this court will no longer interpret Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.3 to require police officers to inform individuals that they have no legal obligation to accompany them to the police station. This declaration is entirely unnecessary to a resolution of the present case, given the majority’s holding that the officers’ failure to give Bell a Rule 2.3 warning on January 8 was irrelevant because they had probable cause to arrest Bell on that date. I fail to understand how this case squarely presents us with an opportunity to reconsider our adherence to the bright-line interpretation of Rule 2.3. See Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420 , 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997) (Brown, J., concurring). I would note that the State does not even request that we undertake such a reconsideration of Rule 2.3. Quite the opposite, the State relies on our bright-line interpretation, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the police violated Rule 2.3 on January 5, emphasizing McCord’s testimony that he told Bell he did not have to accompany him.
As early as Burks v. State, 293 Ark. 374 , 738 S.W.2d 399 (1987), we have read Rule 2.3 to impose a positive duty upon police officers to warn individuals that they are free to leave. See also Martin v. State, supra; Prowell v. State, 324 Ark. 335 , 921 S.W.2d 585 (1996); Smith v. State, 321 Ark. 580 , 906 S.W.2d 302 (1995); Hart v. State, 312 Ark. 600 , 852 S.W.2d 312 (1993); Addison v. State, 298 Ark. 1 , 765 S.W.2d 566 (1989); Burnett v. State, 295 Ark. 401 , 749 S.W.2d 308 (1988). I consider it imprudent to abandon such an established line of precedent where the parties have presented absolutely no argument or briefing on the relative merits of such a course of action. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.