Toward a More Reasonable Justice System: Implementing Minor Corrections to Protect Arkansans from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.
By: Elizabeth Lyon
The Supreme Court recently decided to allow arrestees to bring civil rights actions against their arresting officers if their cases get dismissed. Hopefully, this will improve the deterrent effect that the threat of civil litigation is supposed to have against police misconduct. Up to this point, the has found that 鈥渃ivil lawsuits brought by individual victims of police misconduct have not deterred police misconduct or held police officers and their police departments accountable for their misconduct.鈥�
Unfortunately, the Court鈥檚 2022 decision in Thompson v. Clark offers no recourse for arrestees like Jacob Hodges 鈥� even though Mr. Hodges鈥� . Mr. Hodges was arrested on August 13, 2019, in Springdale, Arkansas, for and , both misdemeanors. On the day of his hearing, the prosecuting attorney offered him a plea deal whereby Mr. Hodges would receive a reduced sentence if he pled guilty to at least one of the charges. Mr. Hodges, however, refused the plea deal. Instead, Mr. Hodges鈥� public defender showed the prosecutor the
After the prosecutor watched the video, the City offered to drop all charges against Mr. Hodges. The Deputy City Attorney prepared a for Mr. Hodges to sign. In the contract, the City of Springdale offers to 鈥渁sk the court for an Order of Nolle Prosequi鈥� in Mr. Hodges鈥� case. In exchange, Mr. Hodges was to 鈥渞elease, acquit and forever discharge the City of Springdale from any and all claims, actions, rights, damages and/or compensation arising out of his interaction with law enforcement on or about August 13, 2019.鈥� The contract also requires Mr. Hodges to 鈥渇orfeit the firearm seized by Springdale Police Department on or about August 13, 2019.鈥� To secure his freedom, Mr. Hodges signed the contract.
Is such a contract enforceable? Wouldn鈥檛 an innocent person be under a considerable amount of duress or undue influence if his only choices were to sign the contract or face criminal prosecution? This is . Nevertheless, plea bargains are 鈥�.鈥� In theory, they reduce the severity of a guilty person鈥檚 punishment in exchange for increasing the efficiency of the judicial process.
However, Mr. Hodges鈥� contract with Springdale is not actually a plea agreement, because he did not plead guilty to any wrongdoing whatsoever. He did not take a lesser charge or a reduced sentence. He walked out of the courtroom with his innocence fully intact. However, in the process, the City stripped him of his right to sue the City of Springdale for how the officers treated him during his arrest. The City also kept his that had been in the trunk of his car the night he was arrested.
For those readers who wish to read a fact-heavy version of this analysis, . For the purpose of this op-ed, though, here is a summary of the main points: The Arkansas legislature should amend the to clarify that none of the exceptions to the felony conviction requirement allow police to ignore the legislature鈥檚 intent that civil asset forfeiture should not apply to innocent people or those charged with anything less than a felony. It is unjustifiable that a local government should be able to enrich itself through civil asset forfeiture by taking property from a person who 鈥� because they were never charged with a felony or even reasonably suspected of committing a felony 鈥� does not fall within the category of people contemplated by the statute.
Although plea agreements that reduce a person鈥檚 criminal charges or their sentence in exchange for waiving the right to a jury trial may be enforceable, Arkansas courts must not enforce any 鈥減lea agreement鈥� that is signed by an innocent person in exchange for the government dropping all charges completely, since any such contract is inherently unconscionable in a judicial system where people are presumed innocent in the first place. If a person admits no guilt whatsoever, and the government has not established culpability by any other means, the government should have no capacity to restrict their rights. Silencing the voice of an innocent person who would otherwise have the right to prove they had been treated unjustly by the police defeats the purpose of the American justice system.