Page:State v. Brown.pdf/3

462 #S K S.—The supreme court concluded that Arkansas's strong public policy in favor of privacy in one's home warranted the opinion in the case at issue and the overruling of King v. State.
 * 1) S.—The supreme court held that the failure of Drug Task Force agents to advise appellee Brown that she had the right to refuse consent to the search violated her right and the right of appellee Williams against warrantless intrusions into the home, as guaranteed by Article 2, § 15, of the Arkansas Constitution; the supreme court affirmed the suppression of all evidence seized that flowed from this unconstitutional search; while the court did not hold that the Arkansas Constitution required execution of a written consent form containing a statement that the home dweller has the right to refuse consent, the court noted that this undoubtedly would be the better practice for law enforcement to follow.

Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; John S. Patterson, Judge; affirmed.

Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Clayton K. Hodges, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellant.

Dale W. Finley, for appellee.

 L. B, Justice. The State of Arkansas appeals an order suppressing contraband seized from the home of appellees Jaye Brown and Michael Williams. The State raises two points on appeal: (1) that the circuit court erred in holding that Article 2, § 15, of the Arkansas Constitution requires that advice of the right to refuse consent be given by law enforcement officers before a consensual search may be found to be voluntary; and (2) that the circuit court erred by holding under the same constitutional provision that police officers must disclose all information known to them before a consensual search may be found to be voluntary. We hold that the circuit court correctly concluded that a home dweller must be advised of his or her right to refuse consent in order to validate a consensual search under the Arkansas Constitution. For that reason, we affirm.