ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE
JAMES MALCOM JONES
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APRIL 25, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE GARY RAY
Appellant James Malcom Jones appeals his drug-related convictions as found by a jury in
Crawford County Circuit Court. His sole argument on appeal is that the trial court clearly erred in
denying his motion to suppress the evidence gained after a stop of his vehicle and a search of the
vehicle pursuant to his consent to search. He does not contest the legality of the stop or the search
per se. Rather, he argues that the Arkansas Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure should
require law enforcement to inform the person giving consent to search a vehicle that he has the right
to refuse or limit his consent, in line with a similar requirement regarding a search of a residence.
We affirm the denial of his motion to suppress.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court conducts a de novo
review based on the totality of the circumstances. See Dickinson v. State, 367 Ark.102, ___ S.W.3d
___ (2006). This court reverses only if the circuit court's ruling denying a motion to suppress is
clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.1(a) provides that an officer may conduct searches
and seizures without a warrant or other color of authority if consent is given to the search. The State
bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that consent was given freely and
voluntarily, without actual or implied duress or coercion. Ark. R. Crim. P. 11.1(b). In State v.
Brown, 356 Ark. 460, 156 S.W.3d 722 (2004), our supreme court held that under Article 2, § 15 of
the Arkansas Constitution, officers who utilize the knock-and-talk procedure are required to inform
a home dweller that he or she has the right to refuse consent to the search. Brown, 3