State v. Barter
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Tom Glaze, Justice.
The state brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s partial granting of Michael Barter’s motion to suppress marijuana found in the trunk of the automobile in which he was traveling. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10(a). We concur with the state that the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires this interlocutory appeal. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10(c). The state argues that the trial court erred in finding that Barter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the automobile searched by the police. We agree. On cross-appeal, Barter argues that the trial…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. James Ray ErwinCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Francisco Rascon, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Stout v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- Cooper v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Littlepage v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.