# Ross v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · November 6, 1989 · 300 Ark. 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681156

## Case

- **Full name:** Vernon ROSS v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 6, 1989
- **Citations:** 300 Ark. 369; 779 S.W.2d 161; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 495
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dudley
- **Judges:** Glaze, Dudley
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681156

## Opinion text

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. The majority opinion holds that the police may validly arrest a person in his motel room, even though the police do not have a warrant of arrest and there were no exigent circumstances.
“Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), held that, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances, warrantless arrests in the home are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). The Fourth Amendment protection extends to a hotel room which a defendant had permission to use. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S.48 (1951).In this case, no exigent circumstances existed, and none are shown to have existed by the majority opinion.
The majority opinion suggests that the illegal arrest was validated because the defendant did not resist the entry by the police. The suggestion of consent is not well-taken. The mere submission to authority is not consent to an illegal arrest. Further, there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
The arrest was illegal and the exclusionary rule should have been applied. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681156. Public record. Not legal advice.