Legal Opinion

State v. Houpt

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 30, 1990No. CR 89-239PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Tom Glaze, Justice.

In accordance with A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10(a), the state brings this interlocutory appeal contending the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to suppress. At a pretrial hearing on appellee’s motion, appellee argued and presented proof that the police officers, without probable cause and in violation of the fourth amendment, stopped the car appellee was driving and found controlled substances as a result of a pretextual search of the car. The state countered with its own argument and proof that the search was permissible. After the trial court granted appellee’s…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Rawlings v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Wicks v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  4. Wilson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
  5. United States v. Gary E. Hansen, Daniel E. Means, AKA Daniel E. Johnson, and Stephen R. BryantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Miller County Circuit Court, Third DivisionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2010
  2. Pulaski County v. Carriage Creek Property Owners Improvement District No. 639Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  3. Ramage v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
  4. Stokes v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
  5. Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. FarrarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2012

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API