I-40 arrest didn't violate driver's rights, court rules

The Associated Press

MULBERRY — A Mulberry city police officer did not violate a motorist’s constitutional rights by arresting the driver on Interstate 40, outside the officer’s jurisdiction, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis affirmed a lower court ruling against Thomas Matthew Rose, who had sued the city over his arrest Aug. 1, 2005, and subsequent search of his vehicle by Officer Robert Limbocker.

Rose claimed the officer violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Charges against Rose were later dismissed, the court noted in its ruling.

The panel said that while Limbocker did not have jurisdiction on the interstate to make arrests, he had probable cause because he saw Rose’s vehicle going 22 mph over the speed limit. The court also noted that Limbocker learned from a police dispatcher that there was an outstanding warrant for Rose from California, although that state apparently was not seeking extradition.

At the time Rose was arrested, Arkansas law prohibited municipal police from “patrolling limited access highways” except when authorized by the director of the Arkansas State Police. The court noted that the city of Mulberry’s request for such authority had been denied by the state police.

The court said its prior rulings on the issue have been mixed, but the judges concluded that the officer made a legitimate search and seizure based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Virginia case.

“Whatever the state of our circuit law has been on this question, the Supreme Court recently held that a police officer who makes an arrest that is based on probable cause but who is prohibited by state law from doing so does not violate the Fourth Amendment,” the appeals court opinion said.