Transcription
On December 3rd, 2022, agents from the FBI contacted the Arkansas State Police to request that a traffic stop be made on Johnson County Sheriff James Stevens, who was driving along US71 in Crawford County, Arkansas. The FBI had been investigating Sheriff Stevens after receiving tips that he may have been engaged in organized corruption. Trooper first class Matthew Price located Sheriff Stevens's vehicle shortly after speaking with the FBI and initiated a traffic stop for speeding. The interaction that followed was captured by the trooper dash camera.
"I'm an Infinity Sports. The black charger 799 Chanel 799. Hello sir. What's up boys? Hey I'm sure I stay police. I stopped you coming flashing lights there. You were speeding just a little bit. My flashing lights by the It used to be flashing lights. It's a 71 282. Uh how fast? You're going 50 and 45. Not that big of a deal. Not too bad. Not too bad. Yeah, not bad. Do you have your license on you? Yeah, I do. You got your registration and insurance? This your car? Uh, where's the counties? The counties? Yeah. What do you work for? A county department? Yeah. Johnson County Sheriff's Office. How long you been with them? I've got my gun on my side, too. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I'm the service man. Uh, I've been the sheriff the last four years. Okay. All right, guys. You're going to have to bear with me. I know we just got the insurance thing a couple of days ago, but I don't know. What are you doing up here in Crawford County? Well, I went to visit a CI. Visit who? A CI just north of town. Uh, delivered some bags of goodies up there. What did you deliver to him? Uh, well, his wife. Uh, let me pop the truck and I'll show you. There's some goods that the co-op deal we did. Yeah. Where it's uh giving out needy needy families and stuff like that. Hey, if you don't deal. Hey, since you're up now, just throw your service weapon over the passenger seat. Come back here. There you go. So, you said you took you meant to seat the metal CI. Yeah. What? Like a confidential form? Yeah. But I mean that's what what were you taking him? He's right here, brother. These are things that we put together. Uh little care packages for homeless uh or not? Well, people in need. Oh, really? Things like that. Yeah. So, why is your CI in Crawford County? Well, got them in Crawford County. I've got CIS in uh got one in uh uh Sebastian County. got uh Franklin that they they just drive to Johnson to work or what? No, no, no. No, just people we get information from. Oh, okay. People known a long time that it's kind of weird get information. Well, it's kind of it's kind of different. Most I mean I I've worked narcotics a lot, you know, but I hear of people having CI and stuff, but I've never heard of them like out like a sheriff or sheriff's department outside that county that works outside of Johnson County. You know what I mean? Yeah. So we do it, brother. Do you? You bet. You bet. You do it as sheriff. Of course. Hands on. Hands on, brother. That's the only way to go. Hard charging. You bet. That's awesome. Absolutely."
When questioned about his business in Crawford County, Sheriff Stevens told the troopers that he was in the area to deliver a care package to one of his "quote unquote CIS" or confidential informants. In law enforcement, a confidential informant is an individual who provides information to police regarding criminal activity, often in exchange for money, leniency, or the dismissal of pending charges. These relationships are designed to grant officers access to communities and criminal networks that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to infiltrate. However, informants also occupy one of the most legally and ethically complicated roles in modern policing, as their reliability and motives are often highly questionable. Rather than being codified into a singular federal statute, the use of confidential informance is governed by a patchwork of agency policies, constitutional constraints, and judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that information from a reliable informant can justify a warrant or arrest when corroborated by independent evidence, most notably in the 1983 case of Illinois versus Gates. Now, in Arkansas, the use of informance is primarily guided by departmental procedure rather than statute. While there is no law explicitly dictating how sheriffs or police must manage their informants, Arkansas judicial precedent mirrors the federal standards established in higher court cases. And Arkansas courts routinely examine the reliability of informants and whether officers independently corroborated an informant's claims before taking enforcement action. Furthermore, the legal framework established in the Gates case presumes that officers act within their lawful authority when using an informant and Arkansas sheriffs are county officials, meaning that their enforcement powers are generally restricted to the territory of their own county unless extended by law. Therefore, Sheriff Steven's explanation that he was merely delivering a care package to a confidential informant was inconsistent with established legal and procedural norms as he was outside his county and therefore his jurisdiction and rightfully garnered more suspicion from Trooper Price.
"So, you just up here fixing head back? I'm going to pull in here, pull, get a buy a knife, uh, and then head back home. Yep. We got a parade of five and head back. Yeah. Okay. Well, this is uh one of my new guys, so let just talk with him for just a second. We'll get you out here in a second. Okay. You don't have no more guns like that on you. Nope. Okay. Give me one second. All right, buddy. He's up here seeing a CI out of Johnson County taking him a thank you back. Never mind here. the FBI. Okay. Okay. You have any other weapons on you at all? Nope. No backup weapon anywhere? Nope. Hey, Sheriff. Let me ask you this. You don't have nothing illegal in your car, do you? Nothing you're not supposed to have? No drugs? Uh, there there could be. Yeah, there could be drugs in there. There is drugs. Yep. What kind of drugs? Uh there's some uh my se uh just gave uh gave me some things. Uh passing. There's some little uh I don't know what things are. Uh there's some some butter and uh marijuana. Two like a butter marijuana and two little buds uh that uh through the course of going on carrying on talking to Hey, go ahead and put your hands behind your back real quick."
Trooper Price detains Sheriff Stevens after he admits that his vehicle contains illegal drugs. A suspect's voluntary admission of criminal conduct, particularly the possession of a controlled substance, constitutes direct evidence of a crime under both federal and state law. That admission alone supplied an independent and sufficient basis for Trooper Price to detain the sheriff, regardless of any parallel FBI investigation or pre-existing intelligence. The Fourth Amendment allows an officer to detain an individual when articulable facts give rise to reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed and authorizes an arrest when those facts develop into probable cause. In the 1976 case of the United States versus Watson, the Supreme Court held that a warrantless arrest is constitutionally sound when an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred. Arkansas courts have consistently applied that same principle, holding that a self-inccriminating statement, when made voluntarily and corroborated by context, is sufficient to justify immediate detention by acknowledging that his patrol vehicle contained controlled substances. Sheriff Stevens effectively confirmed an ongoing violation of Arkansas Code 5-64-419, the state's possession of a controlled substance statute. That confession supplied Trooper Price with an objective, articulable foundation to detain and search Sheriff Stevens, which was totally independent of the FBI's request for assistance.
"This whole deal is odd to me. And so, as of right now, I'm going to go and detain you. Okay? I'm not saying you're under arrest right now, but as of right now, we're just going to detain you till we figure out what's going on. Okay? because I've never heard of of a sheriff, not saying that that what you're doing is is wrong, but I can tell you this. I've been working narcotics for seven years, okay? And I've never heard of a sheriff himself coming out. I'm not saying it don't happen cuz it does happen, but not very often that comes out and works narcotics on his own and and stuff like that. Okay? And now that you said you've got some narcotics car, we're going to search your car. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah. Is this is this your personal car? Is this your No, no, this a county owned vehicle. Okay. Does do does the court court and all them they allow you to take this out for personal use? And I wouldn't quite call it personal use. I want unzip your jacket. Go ahead. Okay. Let me ask you this. Just do you think if you were in my position, would you think this is odd? Uh, trooper, based on I'm talking outside of them being here, but look at me. Are you talking? I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm asking you. I'm going to uh uh uh I'm going to go ahead and just uh invoke my rights and I'm going to speak attorney and assume I'm under arrest. And you guys, I'll be respectful and do whatever you need to do. Okay. I'm going to let you hat right here. Okay. Y'all want to watch him for real? Hey, let's get gloves. Look at that left door right there. Okay. I dude is what was and these? No, no, those are just I don't know what they are. I got to check in this door. Uh, yeah, that's in the doorway. Ain't nothing in this pocket. Okay. Yeah, I got them. Yep. Hey, since you told me where those are, you want to just tell me where that the bud is? Huh? Since you told me where those are, you want to tell me where the butt is? They're in the truck. I put them in a uh uh they're in a uh plastic bag, a trash bag. Okay. Woo! I smell it now. Woo! Damn it, son. Huh? Let's put you out the first. Yeah, that's a lot of wax. Butter wax. Still a lot. Yeah. Just a tad. Let me feel it. This one? No, the one. Oh, the right one. It's not It's twisted in there. You good? All right. I let you see that. Sit over here. Okay. I'm going put you in my car. going over there. You know if the right remains silent, anything taken, we just get you in the court of law. The right attorney present for any question. You can't afford one be no additional charge. Do you understand all that? I do, sir. Okay. Let me ask this. Would you like to talk about anything we found in there so far? Uh, no. I've told you everything that was in there. Well, I'm asking, do you want to do you want to talk about any of that? No. There's an explanation for everything that's in there. I'm asking you, would you, if I ask you some question, would you be willing to talk about it right now? Uh, no. I'm just Thank you."
Trooper Price asks Sheriff Stevens if he would be willing to talk about the illegal substances that were found in his vehicle, and the sheriff declines his request and verbally invokes his right to remain silent. In the 1966 case of Miranda versus Arizona, the Supreme Court established that suspects subjected to custodial interrogation must be advised of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. Once those rights are invoked, all questioning must cease, at least for a significant amount of time, unless the suspect reinitiates communication or waves the invocation voluntarily. This standard applies to anyone in police custody, regardless of whether or not they are a public official. The court later clarified in the 2013 case of Selenus versus Texas that the privilege against self-inccrimination is not self-executing, meaning that a suspect must expressly assert their right to silence in order for it to apply by clearly and verbally invoking his right to remain silent. Sheriff Stevens triggered the full protection of the fifth amendment, and Trooper Price's decision to end the interview at that point was consistent with both federal president and Arkansas case law. Any continued questioning after an explicit invocation would have risked suppression of the statements and any derivative evidence obtained thereafter.
"Just stop for a minute before we get there. I want to talk. You okay? Yeah, I'm good. Okay. They really are tight though, brother. Okay. Cooperative. And I found your wallet. Is there anything else in there that you want to take with you? Um, probably just my I think there's some checkbooks in your wallet. Okay, there's there two more check and much better. over there. I'll get you back."
Sheriff Stevens was arrested and charged with speeding, three counts of drug possession, and one count of possessing a firearm while also in possession of drugs. Following the stop, the Arkansas State Police along with the FBI launched a broader investigation into former Sheriff Stevens' activities. On October 25th, 2023, Sheriff Stevens entered a plea agreement in Crawford County Circuit Court, where he plead guilty to one count of possession of hydrocodone, which is a class D felony under Arkansas Code 5-64-419. Mr. Stevens ultimately received a 6-year sentence, but that sentence was suspended subject to conditions including $10,000 in fines and court costs and the surrender of his law enforcement certification. The prosecutor who negotiated the plea agreement stated that quote, "Mr. Stevens was given the same treatment that any other drug user would get in our county. However, the main focus was permanently removing Mr. Stevens from law enforcement and public service." Following his resignation from the department, chief deputies of the Johnson County Sheriff's Office assumed operational control until the county's quorum court appointed an interim sheriff to serve the remainder of Mr. Stevens's term. As of the writing of this episode, Mr. Stevens remains classified as a convicted felon, which under Arkansas law renders him ineligible to serve in any elected office or in any capacity as a peace officer.
Overall, former Sheriff Stevens gets an F for blatantly abusing his authority for his own personal gain, engaging in flagrant criminal activity while serving as an elected official, and for betraying the trust of the citizens of Johnson County and the integrity of the Johnson County Sheriff's Office. Former Sheriff Stevens' conduct represents one of the most serious breaches of public trust that a law enforcement officer can commit. As the highest ranking law enforcement official in Johnson County, he was responsible for setting the standard for ethical behavior and ensuring that his deputies upheld the law with honesty and discipline. When a sitting sheriff is caught transporting controlled substances across county lines, it can't simply be attributed to a lapse in judgment, and it should constitute the only evidence necessary to deem that official unfit to serve the public. Mr. Stevens used his authority as a sheriff as a shield for criminal activity and demonstrated a complete disregard for the ethical and procedural standards that form the foundation of public service. Perhaps the only silver lining here is that Mr. Stevens was eventually caught and then barred from ever working in any public service capacity. While his sentence was ultimately suspended, the damage to the credibility of the Johnson County Sheriff's Office cannot be overstated, and his conduct grossly undermined every deputy who serves Johnson County honestly, as well as every citizen who depends upon their fair and lawful enforcement. This interaction highlights the danger of unchecked authority within law enforcement and the importance of holding public officials to the same, if not higher, standard of accountability as the citizens that they are sworn to protect.
Trooper first class Price along with the unidentified FBI agents get an A+ for conducting a thorough and wellexecuted investigation, ensuring the integrity of the case by gathering hard evidence, and for maintaining a firm but professional demeanor throughout the encounter. The FBI's choice to coordinate the stop through the Arkansas State Police was both tactically sound and procedurally correct as it removed any appearance of bias that could have arisen from an incount arrest. The decision to let an uninvolved state trooper initiate the stop protected the legitimacy of the investigation and it helped guarantee that the case against Mr. Stevens would survive later scrutiny in court. Every step of the encounter, from the traffic stop to the arrest, was captured on video, and the evidence collected was clear, corroborated, and handled according to lawful procedure and policy. What stands out most to me about Trooper Price's conduct is that he developed probable cause entirely through his own questioning without having to rely on any prior intelligence or pressure from the FBI. His observations and dialogue during the stop directly led to Mr. Stevens admitting that there were illegal drugs in his vehicle, which supplied all the justification that was needed for a lawful detention and search. Equally important was how Trooper Price handled the interview after the arrest. When Sheriff Stevens invoked his right to remain silent, Trooper Price immediately ended the questioning. That decision reflected a clear understanding of constitutional procedure and prevented any claim that the sheriff's statements were coerced or improperly obtained. The FBI agents also deserve credit for their restraint and professionalism. They allowed Trooper Price to take the lead, and they intervened only when necessary in order to secure the evidence and maintain chain of custody. Their coordination ensured that both agencies operated seamlessly, and that the evidence collected would withstand the scrutiny that accompanies a case of this magnitude. Trooper Price and the FBI agents demonstrated how disciplined, cooperative police work can dismantle corruption without undermining public trust, and I commend them both for their excellent police work and their unparalleled professionalism.
Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments down below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam.