Cooney v. Arkansas, State of

E.D. Arkansas

Cooney v. Arkansas, State of

DecidedJanuary 26, 2024

Docket4:21-cv-00717

StatusUnknown

This text of Cooney v. Arkansas, State of (Cooney v. Arkansas, State of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooney v. Arkansas, State of, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KRISHONN COONEY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:21-cv-717-DPM

TAYLOR DUBE, Officer, Morrilton Police Department; NATHAN WATKINS, Officer, Morrilton Police Department; and CHISTOPHER WILLCUT, Detective DEFENDANTS

ORDER Morrilton Police Officer Dube recognized Cooney and pulled him over because Cooney didn’t have a driver’s license. After Officer Watkins and Detective Willcut arrived, the three of them searched Cooney’s car. They found drugs and arrested Cooney. Cooney pleaded guilty to drug charges and is serving his sentence. Here he claims that the search of his car and his arrest were unlawful. The officers seek summary judgment. Cooney didn’t respond to the officers’ motion. He has therefore admitted the facts in the officers’ Local Rule 56.1 statements. LOCAL RULE 56.1(c). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to Cooney. Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 532 (8th Cir. 2019). The search of Cooney’s car and his later arrest were lawful. Officer Dube had reasonable suspicion to pull Cooney over because he knew that Cooney had a revoked driver's license based on Cooney’s

previous encounters with law enforcement. United States v. Caldwell, 97 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir. 1996). The officers’ search of Cooney’s car didn’t offend the Constitution because Cooney consented to it. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250-51 (1991). And he also had a search warrant waiver on file. Doc. 74-2 at 2; Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852 n.3 (2006); ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-93-106. Cooney’s arrest was lawful because the officers found illegal drugs in his car. Klein v. Steinkamp, 44 F.4th 1111, 1115-16 (8th Cir. 2022). Each officer is entitled to qualified immunity on Cooney’s unlawful search and arrest claims.

Motion for summary judgment, Doc. 72, granted. Judgment will issue. So Ordered.

_ Pvp D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 26 Dpeovowr 202

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KRISHONN COONEY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:21-cv-717-DPM

TAYLOR DUBE, Officer, Morrilton Police Department; NATHAN WATKINS, Officer, Morrilton Police Department; and CHISTOPHER WILLCUT, Detective DEFENDANTS

ORDER Morrilton Police Officer Dube recognized Cooney and pulled him over because Cooney didn’t have a driver’s license. After Officer Watkins and Detective Willcut arrived, the three of them searched Cooney’s car. They found drugs and arrested Cooney. Cooney pleaded guilty to drug charges and is serving his sentence. Here he claims that the search of his car and his arrest were unlawful. The officers seek summary judgment. Cooney didn’t respond to the officers’ motion. He has therefore admitted the facts in the officers’ Local Rule 56.1 statements. LOCAL RULE 56.1(c). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to Cooney. Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 532 (8th Cir. 2019). The search of Cooney’s car and his later arrest were lawful. Officer Dube had reasonable suspicion to pull Cooney over because he knew that Cooney had a revoked driver's license based on Cooney’s

previous encounters with law enforcement. United States v. Caldwell, 97 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir. 1996). The officers’ search of Cooney’s car didn’t offend the Constitution because Cooney consented to it. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250-51 (1991). And he also had a search warrant waiver on file. Doc. 74-2 at 2; Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852 n.3 (2006); ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-93-106. Cooney’s arrest was lawful because the officers found illegal drugs in his car. Klein v. Steinkamp, 44 F.4th 1111, 1115-16 (8th Cir. 2022). Each officer is entitled to qualified immunity on Cooney’s unlawful search and arrest claims.

Motion for summary judgment, Doc. 72, granted. Judgment will issue. So Ordered.

_ Pvp D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 26 Dpeovowr 202

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cooney v. Arkansas, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooney-v-arkansas-state-of-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack