Wilson v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Wilson’s suppression motion and held that he lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the rental vehicle because the rental agreement authorized only the named renter to drive it. The court nevertheless held that Wilson could challenge the seizure of his person and that the officer reasonably continued the detention while obtaining a drug dog based on the totality of circumstances and the officer’s diligent efforts. The Arkansas Court of Appeals opinion was vacated because review was treated as an original appeal.