Donald L. Corbin

“ While we may not have a bright-line rule for when a stop is legitimately completed, our case law has consistently held that a stop is not concluded when the officer has not returned the license, paperwork, or ticket. In Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31, 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007) , we noted that during the course of this encounter, the police officer determined that he was going to give the appellant a warning for the traffic violation; but, before doing so, he asked the appellant for his consent to search the vehicle. ”

“ There, this court held that where a canine gave a positive alert, there was probable cause for an officer to search a vehicle. In that case, the officer testified as to the dog's reliability and confirmed that his training records had been maintained. Id. This court in deciding Thompson relied on a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 1999) . There, the appeals court held as follows:
A dog's positive indication alone is enough to establish probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance if the dog is reliable. ”

“ Reasonable cause, as required by this rule, exists when officers have trustworthy information which rises to more than mere suspicion that the vehicle contains evidence subject to seizure and a person of reasonable caution would be justified in believing an offense has been committed or is being committed. E.g., Reyes v. State, 329 Ark. 539, 954 S.W.2d 199 (1997) . Here, we are called upon to review whether a positive alert by a canine constitutes sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle. ”

“ This court has held that a law-enforcement officer, as part of a valid traffic stop, may detain a traffic offender while completing certain routine tasks, such as computerized checks of the vehicle's registration and the driver's license and criminal history, and the writing up of a citation or warning. ”

“ Guidelines for warrantless searches of vehicles are set forth in Rule 14.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides in relevant part that a police officer
who has reasonable cause to believe that a moving . . . vehicle . . . contains things subject to seizure may, without a search warrant, stop, detain, and search the vehicle and may seize things subject to seizure discovered in the course of the search where the vehicle is ”

“ 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 things to be seized. ”

“ The court specifically noted that at the time the officer received consent to search, the officer had neither returned the appellant's identification papers to him, nor given him a copy of the warning. ”