John Abraham Stephens v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION D.P. Marshall Jr.  December 5, 2007  DIVISION III  CACR07­347  5 December 2007  JOHN ABRAHAM STEPHENS,  AN APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [CR­94­900A]  APPELLANT  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS,  THE HONORABLE JAMES ROBERT  MARSCHEWSKI, CIRCUIT JUDGE  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  In  1995,  John  Abraham  Stephens  pleaded  nolo  contendere  to  several  drug  offenses.  The circuit court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison, with twelve and  one half years of that sentence suspended.  One condition of Stephens’s suspended  sentence  was  that  he  not  violate  any  law.    In  2006,  the  circuit  court  revoked  his  suspended  sentence  based  on  his  possession  of  methamphetamine  and  drug  paraphernalia.  The court sentenced Stephens to eighteen months in prison.  Stephens  appeals, arguing that a warrantless entry, a search, and a seizure of evidence from his  home violated his constitutional rights.  Stephens’s alleged drug possession occurred on 12 October 2006.  A neighbor  called police about a domestic disturbance at Stephens’s home.  The neighbor reported  that Stephens was standing over his wife with a crowbar.  When the police arrived,  Mrs.  Stephens  was  leaving  in  her  automobile.    The  officers  went  to  the  door,  announced their presence, and received no response.  One of the officers explained at  the  revocation  hearing  that,  because  they  saw  playground  equipment  outside  the  residence, they feared there might  be other victims—especially children—inside.  The  officers called out but no one responded from inside.  They then entered the home  without a warrant and handcuffed Stephens, who they found sitting in the living room.  They  found  the  crowbar  under  a  couch  cushion  and  saw  illegal  drugs  and  drug  paraphernalia on the mantle.  Mrs. Stephens was stopped by another officer, and she told him that she and her  husband were arguing over the contents of a safe, which was located in the bedroom  closet.  The  officers  continued  to  search  the  trailer—with  Mrs.  Stephens’s  consent—and found more drugs and drug paraphernalia in the bedroom.  One of the  officers then asked Mr. Stephens “if he would have let [them] have consent to search  the house earlier . . .”  Mr. Stephens said he would not and the police stopped their  search.  They returned to the house later that morning with a warrant, removed the safe,  opened it, and found more drugs.  Tests revealed the drugs to be methamphetamine. 2  Stephens  argues  that  the  officers’  warrantless  entry,  search,  and  seizure  of  evidence from his residence were unlawful and that the evidence should have been  suppressed at the revocation hearing.  We disagree.  The exclusionary rule does not  apply strictly in a revocation proceeding.  Dabney v. State, 278 Ark. 375, 377, 646  S.W.2d 4, 5 (1983). Our supreme court has explained that “the exclusion of illegally  obtained  evidence  from  a  prosecution  of  the  new  offense  should  ordinarily  be  a  sufficient deterrent to unlawful police activity.”  Ibid. The exclusionary rule would  apply, however, if Stephens could prove a lack of good faith by the officers.  Harris  v. State, 270 Ark. 634, 638, 606 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Ark. App. 1980).  Here, Stephens  does not allege, and the record does not show, that the officers acted in bad faith when  they entered  and  searched his home.  Thus the circuit court committed no error in  refusing to suppress any of the evidence seized from Stephens’s residence.  Affirmed.  PITTMAN, C.J., and GRIFFEN, J., agree. 3 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.