AR: Merely citing state constitution without using the word “unreasonable” does not state a civil claim

Merely claiming a state constitution violation and citing the section without stating that the search was “unreasonable” did not state a civil claim. The word “unreasonable” is required. Wade v. Ferguson, 2009 Ark. 618 (December 10, 2009)* (Arkansas once again exults form over substance to the point it actually brings disrepute on it as an institution.)

Search of defendant’s shoes after a stop on reasonable suspicion was by consent. Anderson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 804, 372 S.W.3d 385 (2009).*

There is no state law right to notice of a right to refuse consent during a knock-and-talk. Dow v. State, 2009 Alas. App. LEXIS 178 (November 25, 2009).*

Flight from a stop without reasonable suspicion led to abandonment of a box with cocaine, but it happened in seconds, so the stop was not attenuated from the abandonment. State v. Williams, 410 N.J. Super. 549, 983 A.2d 1114 (2009):

Flight from an unconstitutional investigatory stop that could justify an arrest for obstruction did not automatically justify admission of evidence revealed during that flight. For such evidence to be admissible, there had to be a “significant attenuation” between the unconstitutional stop and seizure of evidence. As only four or five seconds elapsed between the order to stop and defendant’s discarding the cocaine, and there were no significant “intervening circumstances” between the two events, the State failed to show significant attenuation.