State v. Anderson, s. 71404

• Decision Date: 26 January 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 71404,71994,s. 71404
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Daniel W. ANDERSON, Appellee. STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Sarah L. HUFFMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 180

910 P.2d 180

259 Kan. 16

STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Daniel W. ANDERSON, Appellee.

STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Sarah L. HUFFMAN, Appellee.

Nos. 71404, 71994.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 26, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. On a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case, the State bears the burden of proving to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure.

2. When the facts material to a decision of the court on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress becomes a question of law. An appellate court's scope of review on questions of law is unlimited.

3. K.S.A. 22-2501 governs searches incident to arrests and sets forth the three purposes for which said searches may be conducted. Where a search rests solely on K.S.A. 22-2501, the search must be conducted for one or more of the three purposes set forth in the statute.

Sara Welch, Assistant District Attorney, argued the cause, and Paul J. Morrison, District Attorney, and Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General, were with her on the briefs, for appellant.

John P. Gerstle, of Gerstle & Reed, Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee Daniel W. Anderson.

Reid T. Nelson, Assistant Appellate Defender, argued the cause, and Rebecca E. Woodman, Assistant Appellate Defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, were on the brief, for appellee Sara L. Huffman.

McFARLAND, Chief Justice:

The driver and the owner/passenger of a Mercedes automobile were charged with a variety of drug offenses after the vehicle was searched following the arrest of the driver on an unrelated matter. The district court held that the search was improper and suppressed the seized evidence. The State appealed therefrom pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in two unpublished opinions: State v. Anderson, No. 71,404, 892 P.2d 529, and State v. Huffman, No. 71,994, 892 P.2d 529, both filed April 21, 1995. We granted the State's petitions for review, and the cases have been consolidated before us.

The undisputed facts may be summarized as follows. On October 26, 1993, at approximately 6:15 a.m., Lee Williams, an Overland Park police officer, was running radar near 61st and Metcalf. Officer Williams observed a Mercedes make an unsafe lane change which nearly resulted in a collision with a van. The officer stopped the Mercedes and approached the driver's side. The driver was a woman, and the individual in the passenger seat was a man. An infant was asleep on the back seat. The officer asked to see the woman's driver's license and a plastic film container he saw in the vehicle. Both were provided to him. The officer is uncertain as to which request was made first. The officer wanted to inspect the container, as he knew illicit drugs were often transported in such containers. There was nothing in the plastic film container. The officer then obtained identification from the passenger, who advised that he was the owner of the vehicle, and returned to the police car. A records check revealed nothing as to the passenger, Daniel Anderson. The check on the driver, Sarah Huffman, revealed: (1) The license she provided had been suspended, and (2) there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest in connection with a charge of operating a vehicle with "no child restraint."

Upon the arrival of his backup unit, Officer Williams returned to the Mercedes, asked Huffman to step out of the vehicle, arrested her for driving on a suspended license and on the warrant, handcuffed her, walked her back to his vehicle, and placed her in the back seat, from which she could not exit. Huffman was not searched. Officer Williams desired to search the Mercedes. For this purpose, he and his backup, Officer John Sanders, approached the vehicle. Anderson was asked to step out of the vehicle to facilitate the search. In the glove compartment, Williams found a modified test tube with a residue in it. The officer's experience and training led him to believe this was a crack pipe. Based on finding the crack pipe, the officer took the keys from the ignition and opened the trunk. Inside, the officer observed an assortment of plastic bags, chemicals, scales, and other items. The officer recognized these as ingredients used in the operation of a methamphetamine laboratory. Anderson was then arrested. When Anderson was booked into jail, a motel room key was found. The execution of a search warrant at the motel room revealed a virtual cornucopia of illicit drug-related items. Specific descriptions of the items seized from the trunk and the motel room and the conduct of such searches are irrelevant to this appeal.

The issues herein stand or fall on Officer Williams' right to search the interior of the Mercedes. The seizures of the evidence from the trunk and the motel room flow from the discovery of the crack pipe in the glove compartment. The parties are in agreement that we need concern ourselves only with the facts relevant to the seizure of this item of evidence to resolve the issues herein.

Before proceeding, the applicable standards of review should be stated.

If the findings of the trial court on a motion to suppress evidence are based on substantial evidence, this court on review will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the trial court. State v. Chiles, 226 Kan. 140, 144, 595 P.2d 1130 (1979). When the facts material to a decision of the court on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress becomes a question of law. State v. Vandiver, 19 Kan.App.2d 786, 788, 876 P.2d 205 (1994), aff'd 257 Kan. 53, 891 P.2d 350 (1995). An appellate court's scope of review on questions of law is unlimited. State v. Heffelman, 256 Kan. 384, 386, 886 P.2d 823 (1994). Further, on a motion to suppress evidence, the State bears the burden of proving to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure. State v. Damm, 246 Kan. 220, 222, 787 P.2d 1185 (1990) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390-91, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2412-13, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 [1978] ).

The only evidence presented relative to pertinent events was the testimony of Officer Williams. No material facts are in dispute. Thus, the issue is whether the search was lawful under the undisputed facts herein. This is a question of law, and our scope of review is unlimited.

A vast body of law has developed in the general category of "search and seizure" under the United States Constitution. Many different aspects of the general subject are included therein. Failure to state the precise aspect of search and seizure law that is involved in the issue to be determined before getting into the law of search and seizure may be likened to attempting to drink from a fire hydrant.

In the case before us, an extremely narrow issue is involved. The search of the vehicle was purely and solely a search incident to arrest. There is no evidence of or claim made that probable cause was present for the search.

K.S.A. 22-2501 sets forth the circumstances under which a search incident to arrest may be made as follows:

"When a lawful arrest is effected a law enforcement officer may reasonably search the person arrested and the area within such person's immediate presence for the purpose of

(a) Protecting the officer from attack;

(b) Preventing the person from escaping; or

(c) Discovering the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the crime."

Officer Williams testified that neither defendant exhibited any hostility and that each cooperated with his requests. Candidly, the officer stated he was not fearful that he would be attacked, that either individual was armed, or that a weapon might be in the vehicle. The officer's conduct was consistent with his lack of concern for his personal safety. At the time of the search of the vehicle, the woman arrested was in handcuffs in the back seat of a police car. There was no way she could leave the back seat on her own initiative. The woman had been arrested for driving on a suspended license and on the "no child restraint" traffic warrant. The searching officer did not claim he was looking for "fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence" of either crime or for any evidence relative to the unsafe driving he had observed. The officer was looking for illicit drugs and drug-related items when he searched the vehicle. Clearly, the district court was correct when it held that the search was not conducted for any of the purposes set forth in K.S.A. 22-2501. It must be stressed that there is no claim that the search was made under the plain view doctrine, that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle, or that the search occurred for any reason other than as an incident to arrest. The officer smelled no marijuana smoke, observed no green leafy material, and had no probable cause for believing drugs or drug paraphernalia were present in the vehicle.

Notwithstanding these facts, the State claims the search was valid solely as an incident to the arrest of Huffman and that K.S.A. 22-2501 governs and permits the search herein. The State reasons as follows: When K.S.A. 22-2501 was enacted in 1970, it codified existing federal law relative to constitutionally permissible searches incident to arrest as enunciated in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, reh. denied 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 36, 24 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969).

In Chimel, the officer had a warrant for defendant's arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. The officers went to Chimel's home to arrest him. They asked for permission to "look around." Chimel objected, but the police searched the entire home, including the attic, garage, and workshop, and seized various items which were introduced as evidence.

The Chimel Court considered whether the warrantless search of Chimel's entire house could be constitutionally justified as incident to his lawful arrest. 395 U.S. at 755, 89 S.Ct....