Arkansas doctor's office searches upheld; sex-assault case evidence allowed

Robert Rook
Robert Rook

CONWAY -- A judge has denied a Conway physician's request to suppress evidence obtained as a result of two search warrants in the rape and sexual-assault case against him.

Robert Rook, 61, had challenged the legitimacy of June 2 and June 15 search warrants, which his attorney Patrick Benca said violate Rook's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. That amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Judge Charles Clawson Jr. advised attorneys of his decision to deny the defense motion in a letter dated Tuesday and filed Friday in Faulkner County Circuit Court.

Clawson noted that one of Rook's arguments was that the first warrant failed to establish the reliability of the witnesses relied upon by a police detective who prepared an affidavit seeking that warrant.

But Clawson said the witnesses were "the reporting victims."

"The Courts have long made a distinction between a citizen informant as opposed to a paid or cooperating individual. This is case law which provides for an almost presumption of reliability for citizen informers in Arkansas," the judge wrote.

Rook faces 10 counts of rape, 10 counts of second-degree sexual assault and one count of third-degree sexual assault involving 14 women, all patients. His trial is to begin Sept. 5.

[EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news alerts, daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox]

ADVERTISEMENT

More headlines

Online court records show inventory from the first warrant, executed June 3, comprised medical records for one of Rook's accusers. The June 15 warrant, executed June 20, collected more inventory: 29 pages of documents from storage in Rook's personal office. Listed were patient records for nine people and information relating to the Arkansas State Medical Board. Conway police also took a video of the office's interior.

Clawson noted that Rook had argued that the evidence "would be stale and that probable cause diminishes."

"It would be noted that in these circumstances the State was searching for patient files maintained in a physician's office," Clawson wrote. "There are numerous cases which [indicate] staleness is not necessarily a matter of time particularly when the item being sought is one which one would necessarily expect the subject of the search warrant to maintain for an extended period of time."

"If the search warrant sought an item which would be readily disposed of such as a plastic baggie containing residue or an ashtray residue of a controlled substance, staleness in that instance would be an issue," he wrote.

But Clawson said "it would be reasonable to assume that a physician would maintain patient records for a period of time in excess of five months. Therefore, the argument of staleness is not strictly a matter of time."

Clawson also rejected the defense's argument that police took a "'dragnet' type approach" to finding information.

Rather, he said, the property specifically related to patient files that police believed contained evidence of the crime relating to three people.

Clawson said defense arguments were similar on both warrants. He ordered the case's special prosecutor, Jason Barrett, to prepare a court order based on the letter -- a common practice among judges.

Benca said Clawson's decision would not "have an impact on our defense."

"We thought the search was overreach," Benca said in a text message. "The Court thought differently. It happens."

State Desk on 03/25/2017

Upcoming Events