Page 762
APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-16-993],
HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee.
OPINION
MEREDITH
B. SWITZER, Judge
Page 763
Eliot
Pargament appeals from his conviction of possession of
marijuana. As his sole point of appeal, he contends the trial
court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the
State failed to prove there was a valid traffic stop. We
agree and reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Trooper Josh Elmore of the Arkansas State Police testified
that on the night in question, he was driving east in the
left lane on Interstate 40. He observed Pargaments vehicle,
a black vehicle, in the right lane. He explained that a white
vehicle pulled in front of Pargaments vehicle, and at that
point, Pargament was driving too closely to the white
vehicle. Elmore said he followed Pargament for "a little
bit" before turning on his lights, giving Pargament the
opportunity to either change lanes and go around the white
vehicle or reduce his speed, but Pargament continued in the
same lane at the same speed. He did not recall how fast
either vehicle was going, but it was not considerably slower
or faster than the speed limit, which was seventy miles an
hour. Based on his training and experience, Elmore believed
if the front vehicle stopped quickly, a vehicle following
within that distance and at that speed would cause an
accident.
On
cross-examination, Elmore clarified that he was initially
following the white vehicle in the left-hand lane but that it
then pulled over into the right-hand lane in front of
Pargaments black vehicle. He acknowledged that the only
reason he pulled Pargament over was because of the distance
between his vehicle and the vehicle that pulled over in front
of him. It was not a situation in which Pargament was
traveling too fast and ran up on the back of the other
vehicle. Rather, the only reason Pargament was following too
closely was because the white vehicle had pulled in front of
him. He said the white vehicle signaled before pulling into
the right lane in front of Pargament— leaving what
looked like one car length between the two vehicles. He said
the white vehicle accelerated and pulled ahead slightly as he
(Elmore) pulled behind Pargaments vehicle. He acknowledged
the possibility that if he had stayed in the left lane for
another ten seconds, the white vehicle would have continued
to accelerate, thereby opening the distance between Pargament
and the white vehicle. Trooper Elmores dashcam video from
that night was also introduced. It established that the
"little bit" of time Elmore followed Pargament
before activating his lights was about thirty seconds.
The
trial court ruled that Elmore had probable cause to stop
Pargament because his vehicle was traveling too closely to
the white vehicle. Pargament contends that there was no
probable cause for the stop and that because the stop was
unconstitutional, the evidence seized as a result of the stop
(marijuana) should have been suppressed because it was fruit
of the poisonous tree.[1]
Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-51-305 (Supp. 2017)
provides that the "driver of a motor vehicle shall not
follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and
prudent, having regard for the speed of vehicles and the
traffic upon
Page 764
and the condition of the highway." A police officer may
stop and detain a motorist when the officer has probable
cause to believe that a traffic offense has occurred.
Cagle v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 69, 571 S.W.3d 47.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within
an officers knowledge are sufficient to permit a person of
reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person suspected. Id. In assessing
the existence of probable cause, our review is liberal rather
than strict. Id. The relevant inquiry is whether the
officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant was
committing a traffic offense at the time of the initial stop,
not whether the driver was actually guilty of a traffic
offense. Id.
In
reviewing a trial courts denial of a motion to suppress
evidence, we conduct a de novo review based on the totality
of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts
for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise
to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight
to the inferences drawn by the trial court. Id. A
finding is clearly erroneous when, even if there is evidence
to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the
entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. I ...