Page:Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 201, 427 S.W.3d 607.pdf/19

 Nonetheless, the majority goes on to state, "Jackson acknowledges that there is case law suggesting that a stop is not completed until the driver's license and any accompanying paperwork is returned, which is precisely what we recently stated in Menne [v. State], 2012 Ark. 37, 386 S.W.3d 451." In Menne, this court stated,

"Two issues confront this court in the instant case. The first is whether the purpose of the traffic stop was over at the time Trooper Roark requested Menne's consent to search the vehicle. The second issue is whether Roark developed a reasonable suspicion during the course of the traffic stop that was a sufficient basis to detain Menne further Countering that, however, is Menne's assertion that the warning citation was not provided to her by Roark because he was waiting for the K–9 unit to begin the dog sniff. Because we conclude that Roark had reasonable suspicion to detain Menne, we need not resolve the first issue."

Id. at 5–6, 386 S.W.3d 451, 454–55 (citations omitted). Menne does not stand for the proposition that a traffic stop is not completed until paperwork is returned. For this same proposition, the majority also relies on Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31, 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007); but, in that case, the evidence accepted by the circuit court was that the officer "was in the process of writing the warning before consent was requested and obtained." Yarbrough, 370 Ark. at 39–40, 257 S.W.3d at 57. This court in Yarbrough stated further as follows:

"In Lilley v. State, [362 Ark. 436, 208 S.W.3d 785 (2005)], we viewed the traffic stop as completed after the warning and vehicle documentation were handed to the driver. Likewise, we said in the Sims case that the legitimate purpose of the stop had terminated "after [the officer] handed Sims back his driver's license and registration, along with a warning for [the traffic offense]" Sims v. State, 356 Ark. [507] 513, 157 S.W.3d [530], 534. Based on this case law, we cannot say that the circuit court's ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence."

Id. at 39, 257 S.W.3d at 57.

There is no question that this court has concluded that handing back the paperwork and giving the person a warning or ticket constitutes a legally recognized indicia that the