Arkansas Blog

Feland seems to be a big synder and Pryor supporter, and his son works for Pryor, the only probelm is that all his donations to pryor seem to come a few weeks before his son started working for pryor and then seem to occur about a month before his son gets a promotion or a raise in the Pryor office.

Also it seems that Feland or his son tried to sue the city of Fayetteville and the state to try to get out of a DWI back in 2004.

Looks a little scetch for someone trying to be Prosecutor.

Wasn't she the one that prossecuted that goofy ass sheriff and his wife which was checking convicts out of the jail for sex at her house?

That was a hoot to watch unfold. Truth is stranger than fiction any day.

Do you really want this person working as your Prosecutor?

Feland v. State
1/22/2004
Appellant William Feland was convicted of driving while intoxicated and violating Fayetteville's noise ordinance. On appeal, he argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress on the grounds that the noise ordinance is unconstitutional, and the police officer who pulled him over should have known of the ordinance's unconstitutionality.
This case was tried to the court on the following stipulated facts. Feland was driving his truck in the early morning hours of August 27, 2001, along Gregg Street in Fayetteville. A Fayetteville police officer observed that the vehicle's stereo was plainly audible at a distance of approximately seventy-five feet; the officer's car windows were rolled up, and Feland's were down. Because Fayetteville's noise ordinance prohibits vehicular stereos being plainly audible at a distance of more than thirty feet, the officer initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer smelled a "very strong" odor of alcoholic beverages. The officer then conducted several field sobriety tests, and determined that Feland was intoxicated. Feland subsequently took both breathalyzer and blood-alcohol tests, and each test registered above the legal limit. The City of Fayetteville charged Feland with driving while intoxicated, as well as with violating the noise ordinance.
Feland filed a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence on October 18, 2002, arguing that he was illegally stopped and detained, and arrested without probable cause or a warrant. On December 9, 2002, Feland filed a motion to have the Fayetteville noise ordinance declared unconstitutional, alleging that the ordinance was overbroad, void for vagueness, and unreasonably interfered with private-property rights. He further asked the trial court to rule that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop Feland, based on the volume of the music emanating from the vehicle, and that a reasonable police officer would have known that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
In a letter order dated March 12, 2003, the trial court denied Feland's motion to suppress, finding that Feland could not raise a facial challenge to the alleged overbreadth of the ordinance, and that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. Further, the court found that, even if the ordinance were unconstitutional, the officer who stopped Feland was acting reasonably and in good faith reliance on the ordinance. Having denied Feland's motion to suppress, the court found him guilty of violating the Fayetteville noise ordinance, and of driving while intoxicated. Feland was sentenced to ninety days, with eighty-nine days suspended, and ordered to pay $300 in fines and $150 in costs.