Webb v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 373
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR09-911
No.
Opinion Delivered
KIMBERLY ANN WEBB
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
May 5, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-985-B]
HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to two felony drug offenses pursuant to
Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), reserving her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion
to suppress evidence obtained in the assertedly illegal search of her motel room. We affirm.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate court makes
an independent examination based upon the totality of the circumstances and reverses only
if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Miller v. State,
81 Ark. App. 401, 102 S.W.3d 896 (2003). Because a determination of the preponderance
of the evidence depends heavily on questions of the weight and credibility of the testimony,
we defer to the superior position of the trial court on those questions. Id.
The record shows that appellant’s boyfriend was subject to a valid arrest warrant for
failure to appear following affirmance of a criminal conviction. In order to avoid forfeiture
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 373
of their bond, two bail bondsmen attempted to locate the boyfriend. In so doing, they
tracked appellant to an Oklahoma motel. On arrival, the bondsmen telephoned police
officers to inform them that they would attempt to apprehend appellant’s boyfriend at the
motel. The police appeared at the scene, questioned the motel clerk, and learned that both
appellant and her boyfriend were, at that moment, in Room 142 of the motel. The room
was registered in appellant’s name, and she had been staying there for thirty-nine days,
beginning on June 30, 2008. Our affirmance of the boyfriend’s revocation was handed down
the previous month on May 28, 2008. Melancon v. State, CACR07-1295 (Ark. App. May 28,
2008) (unpublished). His failure to surrender himself following our decision gave rise to the
warrant for his arrest.
We note that, although a hotel or motel room is not a permanent residence, one
registered at a hotel or motel as a guest is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Scroggins v. State, 276 Ark.
177, 633 S.W.2d 33 (1982). However, we find no unreasonable search in this case. A valid
warrant had issued for the arrest of appellant’s boyfriend. The police officers were aware of
this, they had current and reliable information that appellant and her boyfriend were then
present in Room 142, and the circumstances supported a reasonable belief that the motel
room was serving as their residence. Our supreme court’s holding in Benevidez v. State, 352
Ark. 374, 101 S.W.3d 242 (2003), explicitly allows officers to enter a dwelling if they have
a valid arrest warrant and reason to believe that the suspect lives in the dwelling and is within
-2-
CACR09-911
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 373
it. In light of that holding and the circumstances of this case, we hold that the trial court did
not err in declining to suppress items found in plain view in the motel room while appellant’s
boyfriend was being apprehended.
Affirmed.
HART and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR09-911
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.