City of Hutchinson v. Davenport
Decision Date | 27 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 87,682.,87,682. |
Citation | 54 P.3d 532,30 Kan. App.2d 1097 |
Parties | CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. ROBERT DAVENPORT, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Michael C. Robinson, of Reynolds, Forker, Berkley, Suter, Rose & Graber, of Hutchinson, for appellant.
James S. Oswalt, of Hutchinson, for appellee.
Before GREEN, P.J., WAHL, S.J., and JOHN J. BUKATY, JR., District Judge, assigned.
Robert Davenport was found guilty of driving under the influence in the municipal court of Hutchinson. He appealed to the district court of Reno County. That court sustained his motion to suppress certain evidence. The City of Hutchinson (City) filed this interlocutory appeal, and the district court continued the trial pending this court's ruling. The case presents a single question: Was the stop of Davenport by the arresting officer proper under K.S.A. 22-2402? The relevant facts are not in dispute. We are presented with a question of law, and our review is de novo. See State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657, 847 P.2d 1280 (1993). We hold that the stop was not proper and that the trial court properly suppressed the evidence.
Davenport went to the Hutchinson Law Enforcement Center (Center) to check on his daughter whom the police had picked up and to locate her vehicle. Lieutenant Randy Henderson allowed Davenport into the office so Davenport could make a telephone call.
Henderson then took Davenport to the Center's basement to view his daughter's vehicle. At that time, the two men were within a few feet of each other and were together for about 5 minutes. Henderson detected the odor of alcohol on Davenport's breath. Henderson mentioned the odor to Davenport and told him not to drive a vehicle. Davenport replied he was walking, not driving, home. Henderson found this strange because Davenport had mentioned that he lived in Wichita.
Henderson had worked for the police department for 25 years. He was trained in detecting people under the influence of alcohol and had made several arrests for DUI.
After Davenport left the building, Henderson watched him from a window. Davenport walked across the street and stood near a building for less than 5 minutes. The lieutenant described Davenport's behavior as "looking around up and down the street, both to the south and specifically to the west." Henderson then saw Davenport get into a pickup truck, start it up, and back it out. He testified that he then called Sergeant David Miller who was in the area.
Henderson told Miller that a man he thought might be intoxicated had just left the station. He also relayed Davenport's earlier statements about walking although he lived in Wichita. Henderson then told Miller of Davenport's location outside.
Henderson testified at the suppression hearing that he believed Davenport was possibly intoxicated. Davenport had neither slurred his words nor had an unsteady gait. His eyes, however, were bloodshot. Henderson's concern was that Davenport might be involved in an accident and hit someone. He asked Sergeant Miller to check out and determine whether Davenport could safely operate a vehicle.
Henderson also testified Davenport did not commit any traffic infractions while backing out his pickup truck, nor did he back out in an unusual fashion. Henderson soon lost track of Davenport, but in the short time he observed him driving, Henderson noted that Davenport did not drive in an unusual manner.
Miller testified he, too, knew how to recognize people under the influence of alcohol. Upon his arrival, Miller observed Davenport walk over to a building, stand there for 3 to 5 minutes, and then get into his pickup truck.
Miller testified it looked as if Davenport was waiting for a ride. Other officers left the area, but Miller remained. He saw nothing unusual about Davenport's gait as he watched Davenport walk across the street. He saw Davenport get into his pickup, back out, and drive east. There was also nothing unusual about the way Davenport was driving. Davenport appropriately stopped at a red light, and he proceeded through the intersection when the light turned green. When Miller activated his lights, Davenport pulled over. Davenport provided Miller with his driver's license and insurance "[a]fter a short period of time" and some fumbling.
The City asserts that since the arresting officer believed Davenport was committing a crime, the trial court erred in granting Davenport's motion to suppress. Davenport claims Miller did not have sufficient articulable facts to formulate a reasonable suspicion that Davenport was committing a crime.
In its memorandum opinion, the district court framed the issue as "whether K.S.A. 22-2402 permitted Sergeant David Miller to stop the defendant on the date, time and place in question." The district court then ruled:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Pollman
...op. at 11-12. The panel stated the totality of the circumstances in this case mirrored those discussed in City of Hutchinson v. Davenport, 30 Kan. App.2d 1097, 54 P.3d 532 (2002), where a different Court of Appeals panel found an insufficient factual basis to constitute a reasonable suspici......
-
Strickert v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
...necessary to extend the stop for purposes of conducting a DUI investigation, Strickert cites to City of Hutchinson v. Davenport , 30 Kan. App. 2d 1097, 1101, 54 P.3d 532 (2002). In that case, a panel of this court held that the odor of alcohol alone does not give an officer reasonable suspi......
-
State v. Reesor
...a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol as long as it does not unlawfully impair the driver. Reesor cites City of Hutchinson v. Davenport, 30 Kan.App.2d 1097, 54 P.3d 532 (2002), and State v. Arehart, 19 Kan.App.2d 879, 882, 879 P.2d 227 (1994), to support this contention. The record in thi......
-
People v. Bruni
...797 S.W.2d at 452. We are aware that courts in Kansas and Ohio have reached the opposite result. See City of Hutchinson v. Davenport, 30 Kan.App.2d 1097, 54 P.3d 532 (2002) (smell of alcohol on defendant's breath while he was at police station because the police had “picked up” his daughter......
-
Search and seizure
...testing ( id ., at 320-21), while other jurisdictions have reached a contrary conclusion. See, e.g., City of Hutchinson v. Davenport , 30 Kan. App.2d 1097, 54 P.3d 532 (2002) (smell of alcohol on defendant’s breath while he was at police station because the police had “picked up” his daught......
-
Table of cases
...1 Cal.App. 5th 755, §5:100.7 City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, §5:91.1.3 City of Hutchinson v. Davenport , 30 Kan.App.2d 1097, 54 P.3d 532 (2002), §7:20.27.2 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 531 U.S. 32, §7:74 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Ca......