Petition — Block v. Arkansas

| Supreme Court, U.S.

80-1176 ene

JAN § 198;

MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court Of The United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

No.

SSS EASE RD Sa AER DAE Fe Petitioner

ND ee hee tcavinah Kadedeees Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

HAROLD L. HALL

300 Spring Building - Suite 415

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

(501) 372-4885

Attorney for Petitioner

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Whether in absence of exigent circumstances the

warrantless, non-consensual entry into a person’s home for

the purpose of arresting him violates his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights and compel him to stand

trial.

SUBJECT INDEX

Page

OPINION BELOW . on ccc cccccccccccccveswepescnseven 1

JURISDICTION ......... das Sa Saute ap lke dd Sapa S 1

QUESTION PRESENTED ...........-c cesses eeeeeeees 2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........ 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ........... eee eceeeseeees 3

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..............+. 4

1. The decision of the Arkansas

Supreme Court that a citizen

must stand trial even though

he was illegally arrested in his

home without a warrant of

arrest in absence of exigent cir-

cumstances, fingerprinted and

photographed for the purpose

of completing the investigation

by the officers, violated the

citizen's rights under the Con-

situation of the United States......... 4

SE ir hese kas. 0 Ge UAee he ode REM S URED emeouN 10

APPENDIX “A”... OPINION BELOW ................ il

APPENDIX “B”... PETITION FOR REHEARING. .... 13

4%

7.

APPENDIX “C”.... JUDGMENT BELOW.........

APPENDIX “D” ... NOTICE OF PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI ......

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Payton and Reddick v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,

I EE 8 ccs Walkie boob SURE RES ene Ra al eas

Ce ae Te EE ie Kova hc ceeade eubcase ees

US: & Boule, GOR FBG 190T 6 icc ccckedcuwedeiess

Haynes v. State, 269 Ark. 506, 602 S.W.2d 599......

United States v. United States District Court,

EE XK ain eed Cdk Kush ke whe ceed ceslibee

McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451...........

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411..............

OTHER AUTHORITIES

United States Constitution

eeenore

IN THE

Supreme Court Of The United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

No.

I Te ra ig kw eha ruck Petitioner

he ewe waw eee watnee Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

The Petitioner, Charles E. Block, respectfully prays

that a Writ of Certiorari be issued to review the judgment

of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, entered in the above

entitled case on November 10, 1980.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is

reported at 270 Ark. Adv. Sh. 671, S.W.2d oat

is responded in Appendix “A” to this Petition.

JURISDICTION

_ The opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas was

rendered October 13, 1980. That Court entered final

judgment upon denying rehearing November 10, 1980, a

%

>.

2

copy of which appears in Appendix “C”. The jurisdiction of

the United States is involved under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (3).

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Whether in absence of exigent circumstances the

warrantless, non-consensual entry into a person’s home for

the purpose of arresting him violates his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights and compel him to stand

trial.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no

warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

thing to be seized.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT XIV,

SECTION 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of

the United States and the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its’ jurisdiction the equal _

protection of the laws.

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On January 3, 1980, four youths, of which one was

alleged to have been armed with a .22 caliber rifle and

another with a pistol, took control over property in excess

of $100.00 from Steven Benson. Several hours later, the

police arrested a subject who gave a statement naming the

Petitioner and two others as being the participants in the

alleged crime.

At approximately 6:30 p.m. on January 5, 1980,

officers of the Little Rock Police Department went to the

home of the Petitioner without a warrant of arrest and

without the consent of the Petitioner or his mother, entered

the home and arrested the Petitioner.

Seventeen days later, on January 22, 1980, an

Information was filed by the Prosecuting Attorney for the

Sixth Judicial District charging the Petitioner with

aggravated robbery, attempted capital felony murder and

theft of property in excess of $100.00 alleged to have been

committed on January 3, 1980.

On May 2, 1980, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss

on the grounds that he was arrested in his home without a

warrant of arrest in violation of his rights under the

Constitution of the United States and the State of

Arkansas. On May 7, 1980, after a hearing in which both

sides presented testimony, the trial court granted the

Motion to Dismiss. The State appealed this decision to the

Supreme Court of Arkansas which reversed the trial court

and held that the Petitioner must stand (rial even if the

arrest was illegal. It is from this decision that the Petitioner

brings this Petition For Certiorari.

4

REASON FOR GRANTING

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

I. THE DECISION OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME

COURT THAT A CITIZEN MUST STAND TRIAL

EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ILLEGALLY AR-

RESTED IN HIS HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT

OF ARREST IN ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIR-

CUMSTANCES, FINGERPRINTED AND PHOTO-

GRAPHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLET-

ING THE INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICERS,

VIOLATED THE CITIZEN’S RIGHTS UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Petitioner respectfully submits that the Supreme

Court of Arkansas erred in reversing the decision of the

trial court to dismiss the charges against Petitioner.

While investigating an aggravated robbery case,

members of the Little Rock Police Department arrested a

Mr. Timothy Gomillion at approximately 10:00 p.m. on

January 3, 1980. Gomillion made a statement implicating

the Petitioner. On January 5, 1980, at approximately 6:30

p.m., Officer Jones went to Petitioner’s home and asked to

see him. Officer Jones stated that Petitioner's mother

opened the door and invited him in. (R. 73-74)

Officer Jones stated that he arrested the Petitioner

at 6:30 p. m. on the fifth, and then eighteen minutes later, at

6:48, read him his rights and photographed him at 6:48 p.m.

A photo line-up was held at 7:35 p.m. Officer Jones admitted

that he had Petitioner’s name as a suspect at 10:00 p.m. on

January 3, 1980, made no attempt to secure a warrant of

arrest or a search warrant before arresting him in his home

at 6:30 p.m. on January 5, 1980. (R. 78-79)

5

Petitioner’s mother, Eddie Block, testified that a

man knocked on the door and asked if Charles was there,

and she told him, “Yes, just a minute” and when she looked

around the man had come through the living room and

followed her down the hall. She said she did not tell him to

come in and did not know he was behind her until she looked

back. (R. 84)

The Petitioner testified that he was in his own room

lying down when Mr. Jones and another officer entered

without a warrant and placed handcuffs on him and took

him to headquarters. (R. 98)

On April 2, 1980, Petitioner filed a Motion To

Suppress and a Motion To Suppress In Court Identification.

(R. 14-16)

On April 29, 1980, a hearing was held on Petitioner's

Motion To Suppress and Motion To Suppress In Court

Identification. (R. 29-71) At the hearing, the prosecuting

witness testified that Officer Jones called him to come down

to headquarters as he thought he might have one of them in

custody. The officer had six photographs laid out on a desk

and he picked Petitioner's picture out. (R. 58-59) The trial

court overruled the Motions To Suppress. (R. 69)

The opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court in

reversing the trial court cited the case of U.S. v. Crews, 100

S.Ct. 1244 (1980) and quoted Footnote 34: “The issue is not

whether a defendant must stand trial, because he must do

so even if the arrest is illegal. In the present case no

identification was made until after the Petitioner had been

illegally arrested, while in the Crews case, supra, the

respondent was taken into custody because he was a

suspected truant. He was transported to Park Police

*’

6

headquarters, where the police briefly questioned him,

obtained the desired photograph, telephoned his school, and

released him. He, was never formally arrested or charged

with an offense connected with his being taken into custody.

In Payton v. New York and Reddick v. New York,

445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (1980) this Court held:

“The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to

the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits

the police from making a _ warrantless and

nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to

make a routine felony arrest.”

In U.S. v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412 (CA 2 1977) cert. den.

439 U.S. 913, it was stated on page 423:

“To be arrested in the home involves not only

the invasion attendant to all arrests but also an

invasion of the sanctity of the home. This is simply too

substantial an invasion to allow without a warrant, at

least in the absence of exigent circumstances, even

when it is accomplished under statutory authority and

when probable cause is clearly present.”

In the present case, it must be remembered that the

officers had the information they acted upon for two days

before arresting the Petitioner in his home without an

arrest warrant. They offered no testimony of exigent

circumstances. There was nothing to prevent them during

the two day interval from presenting their evidence to a

magistrate and request a warrant of arrest.

In the case of U.S. v. Houle, 603 F.2d 1297, decided

by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 17, 1979, the

Court vacated the judgment of the district court's

7

conviction of a defendant arrested in his home without a

warrant and held that warrantless arrest of a defendant in

his home was not justified on theory of exigent

circumstances, where officers deliberately delayed four

hours before going to defendant’s home, indicating that

they did not believe defendant would attempt to escape or

destroy evidence, officers made no attempt to obtain search

or arrest warrant, exigency arising from rifle near bed on

which defendant was sleeping could not have been

anticipated by officers and did not excuse their earlier

failure to obtain warrant, and seizure of rifle by officers,

who reached it through broken window, disposed of any

justification officers might have had for kicking down door

and entering room, since they had seized the only visible

weapon.

In the recent case of Haynes v. State, 269 Ark. 506,

602 S.W.2d 599 (1980), cert. den. 12/15/80, it was stated:

“x x x We have always construed the Fourth

Amendment to prohibit entry into one’s home, without

a warrant, for any reason; except, exigent cir-

cumstances have been determined to allow a

warrantless intrusion. Absent exigent circumstances,

such an intrusion is not permitted. Payton v. New

York, 445 U.S: 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (1980) x x x Using an

old cliche, a man’s home is his castle; and, it should be

free from intrusion by outsiders, including the

government and its officers. The United States

Supreme Court has confirmed the statement that

illegal entry into a person’s home is the chief evil

guarded against by the Fourth Amendment. United

States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297

(1972); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948).

The primary interest protected by the Fourth

Amendment has always been the privacy of the home.

’*%

8

Accordingly, the decisions of this Court have long afforded

the most stringent protection to the sanctity of private

dwellings. The paramount significance of the home in our

Constitutional scheme is due to the various meanings the

home has for our citizenry. Not only is it a fundamental

property interest but, as the center of the personal life of

the individual, it is the place in which legitimate

expectations of privacy are the highest.

The warrant requirement is essential to the

protection of the substantial privacy interests affected by

arrest entries and is as important here as in the search

context. Because police possess exceptionally wide

discretion as to whether, when and where an arrest should

be made, a power that has been abused, an arrest warrant

issued by a neutral magistrate prior to entry into a home

reduces the opportunity for police errors or excesses. The

warrant limits and delineates the scope of the permissible

intrusion and reduces the frequency with which hindsight

may affect the evaluation of the reasonableness of the

entry. The warrant also protects against otherwise

irreparable deprivations of constitutional rights due to

erroneous police judgments.

Additionally, the warrant requirement, in the

~timited circumstance of arrests within the home, imposes no

undue burden on law enforcement. It does not. limit the

power to arrest without a warrant when there are exigent

circumstances. On the other hand, where immediate action

is not necessary, as is true of a substantial number of

arvests, the additional brief delay to obtain a warrant is

unconsequential. When measured against the seriousness of

the intrusion to privacy within the home, law enforcement

interests in being free of the warrant requirement are

unsubstantial.

’,.

Unlike the si uation in United States v. Watson, 423

U.S. 411 (1976), wiuere the common law concerning

warrantless public arrests was exceptionally clear, the

common law as to arrests within the home is far less certain

and many authorities require warrants for entries to arrest.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, common law

authorities were in disagreement as to the actual rule and

nineteenth centuries remain divided. Significantly, once

modern courts, both federal and state, considered the issue

in the context of Fourth Amendment principles, they

concluded overwhelmingly that a warrant is required.

Consequently, the history of the common law of arrest

provides no guidance in this instance to the proper

construction of the Fourth Amendment.

The arrest in Crews, supra, and Watson, supra, were

warrantless and made in public places while the arrests in

Payton and Reddick, supra, were warrantless and made in

thes bjects homes as was done in the present case.

10

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, it is

respectfully submitted that the Petition For A Writ of

Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

HAROLD L. HALL

300 Spring Building - Suite 415

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

(501) 372-4885

Attorney for Petitioner

11

APPENDIX “A”

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

NO. CR 80-153

Opinion Delivered October 13, 1980

STATE OF ARKANSAS, a

Appellant, Appeal from Pulaski

V. Circuit Court; Floyd

Lofton, Judge

CHARLES E. BLOCK,

Appellee. Reversed.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH,

Associate Justice

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, J. On January 3, 1980, a

robbery occurred in Little Rock. That night the police

arrested a suspect who made a statement implicating the

appellee, Charles E. Block. Two nights later an officer went

to Block’s home, without an arrest warrant, and arrested

him. Block was charged by information with aggravated

robbery, criminal attempt to commit capital murder, and

theft of property.

The trial court, acting upon a pretrial motion to

dismiss the charges, conducted a hearing on the validity of

Block’s arrest. On conflicting testimony the court found the

arrest illegal, because when Block’s mother opened the door

in response to the officer’s knock, the officer entered the

house without an invitation and arrested Block. The trial

12

judge, relying solely upon the Supreme Court’s holding in

Payton v. New York, decided last April, dismissed the

charges on account of the i'legal arrest. Payton v. New

York, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (1980).

The State took an appeal to this court, under Rule

29 (1)(k), on the erroneous assumption that this is an

interlocutory appeal. Of course it is not, an order of

dismissal being final. The State’s procedure, however,

complies with Criminal Procedure Rule 36.10 (b) and (c), and

we have retained jurisdiction because the case presents an

issue of significant public interest or a legal principle of

major importance. Rule 29 (4) (b).

The trial judge manifestly misinterpreted the

Supreme Court’s holding in Payton. It is unthinkable that a

person who has committed murder, for example, should go

scot free just because an officer enters his home without an

invitation and arrests him without a warrant. The law is

just the opposite. United States v. Crews, 100 S.Ct. 1244

(1980); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975); Singleton v.

State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). In the Payton

case the court merely held that evidence is not admissible

when it was obtained by an officer’s illegal entry into a

person’s home without an arrest warrant. There was no hint

that the charges should be dismissed. Quite the contrary,

the court specifically stated in Footnote 34: “The issue is not

whether a defendant must stand trial, because he must do

so even if the arrest is illegal.”

The judgment is reversed, and Block not yet having

been in jeopardy, the cause is remanded for trial.

13

APPENDIX “B”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT

VS. CR-80-153

CHARLES E. BLOCK APPELLEE

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Comes now the Appellee, Charles E. Block, and

respectfully petitions the Court to grant a rehearing of its

decision of October 13, 1980, and affirm the judgment of the

lower Court, and for grounds for his Petition does

respectfully assert the following errors of fact and law

contained in its opinion of October 13, 1980.

I.

The opinion of this Court overlooks the fact that the

officers had the information it relied upon to enter

Appellee’s home for two days before entering his home and

arresting him without a warrant of arrest. There was no

exigent circumstances and nothing to prevent the officers

from securing a warrant of arrest. The Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States guaranteed the right of the people to be secure in

their persons and houses against unreasonable searches and

seizures. These Amendments were enacted to protect the

citizens from such warrantless arrests as in the present

case.

>

14

The Supreme Court of the United States in the

Payton v. New York and Riddick v. New York, 100 S.Ct.

1371 was aware of its decision in United States v. Crews,

100 S.Ct. 1244 as it was decided three weeks later.

Under the opinion of this Court in the present case,

no citizen is protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments from warrantless arrests and seizures in his

own home if the officers can ignore the requirement to

secure a warrant before entering and arresting him when

they have sufficient time to do so and no exigent

circumstances exits. It is questionable that the old saying

“A man’s home is his castle” still exists.

WHEREFORE, Appellee prays that said appeal be

reheard by this Court, that upon such rehearing, this Court

reverse its opinion of October 13, 1980, and affirm the

decision of the Pulaski Circuit Court.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Harold L. Hall

HAROLD L. HALL

Suite 415 - 300 Spring Building

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE

Comes Harold L. Hall, attorney for Appellee,

Charles E. Block, and states that the above and foregoing

Petition for Rehearing is not filed for the purpose of delay

and it is his belief that there is merit in the Petition.

/s/ Harold L. Hall

HAROLD L. HALL

15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition

has been served upon Mr. Joe Purvis, Office of the Attorney

General, Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, this 28th

day of October, 1980.

/s/ Harold L. Hall

HAROLD L. HALL

APPENDIX “C”

LAW OR CHANCERY MANDATE

STATE OF ARKANSAS, )

(SCT.

In the Supreme Court )

BE IT REMEMBERED, That at a term of the

Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, begun and held at

the Court Room in the City of Little Rock, on the 6th day,

being the first Monday of October, A.D. 1980, amongst

others were the following proceedings, to-wit:

On the 10th day of November, A.D. 1980, a day of said

term

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellant Appeal from Pulaski

Circuit Court

No. CR 80-153 vs. District

CHARLES E. BLOCK

Appellee

Petition for Rehearing denied.

16

IN TESTIMONY, That the above is a true copy of

the order of said Supreme Court, rendered in the case

therein stated, I, Dona L. Williams, Clerk of said Supreme

Court, hereunto set my hand and affix the Seal of said

Supreme Court, at my office in the city of Little Rock, this

30th day of December, A.D. 1980.

DONA L. WILLIAMS

CLERK

By: /s/ Robin Henderson

D.C.

APPENDIX “D”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT

Vs. NO. CR-80-153

CHARLES E. BLOCK APPELLEE

NOTICE OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Comes the Appellee, Charles E. Block, and files this

notice of his Petition For Writ of Certiorari of the decision

of this Court reversing the Pulaski Circuit Court and

denying his Petition For Rehearing on November 10, 1980.

%

r%

“17

WHEREFORE, Appellee prays a Writ Of Certiorari

‘to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Harold L. Hall

HAROLD L. HALL

Suite 415 - 300 Spring Building

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Harold L. Hall, attorney for Appellee, hereby

certify that I have served a copy of the above and foregoing

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari on the Honorable Steve

Clark, Attorney General, Justice Building, Little Rock,

Arkansas, on this 10th day of November, 1980.

/s/ Harold L. Hall

HAROLD L. HALL

Filed November 10, 1980

Dona L. Williams, Clerk