State v. Bates

• Decision Date: 29 July 2022
• Docket Number: 122,128
• Citation: 513 P.3d 483
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Carlos R. BATES, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

513 P.3d 483

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Carlos R. BATES, Appellant.

No. 122,128

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed July 29, 2022.

Rick Kittel, Lawrence, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Luckert, C.J.:

This appeal arises after police detained Carlos R. Bates while he sat in a minivan in an alleyway. The detention followed a series of events that began with a late-night 911 call reporting an unwelcomed knocking on the door of a home. An officer quickly arrived, and an occupied minivan parked near the home drove away. Another officer then spotted the minivan in a nearby alleyway and turned on emergency lights and blocked the minivan from leaving. When both officers reached the alleyway, they approached the vehicle. Smelling marijuana, the officers conducted a search that led to the State charging Bates with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia with the intent to distribute. Bates sought to suppress evidence obtained during the search because he argued the seizure of the minivan violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

The district court judge denied Bates' motion to suppress, concluding the detention was reasonable and justified under the public safety exception to the warrant requirement. Bates appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress after holding the district court judge correctly denied the motion but used the wrong rationale for doing so. The Court of Appeals rejected the judge's reliance on the public safety exception and instead held the officers held a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and legitimately conducted a valid investigatory detention under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). See State v. Bates , No. 122,128, 2021 WL 301896, at *3-4 (Kan. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion).

Upon review, we affirm the Court of Appeals and the district court's denial of Bates' motion to suppress. We hold, as did the Court of Appeals, that the officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified an investigatory detention.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A brief discussion of the procedural background helps frame the issue before us, which is narrower than the issue presented to either the district court or the Court of Appeals. We begin by explaining the procedure that leads us to a limited review of the district court and Court of Appeals decisions.

We first note that we do not have before us the question of whether a police officer seized the minivan parked in the alleyway when he pulled behind it and activated his emergency lights. The parties litigated that question in the district court, and the district court determined a seizure occurred. On appeal, the parties do not dispute that ruling. Likewise, no party raises issues about the legality of the search of the minivan if we determine its seizure was valid. As a result, the single overarching issue is whether the officers' seizure of the minivan violated the Fourth Amendment and section 15.

The trial and appellate process have further narrowed the scope of that single issue. To explain, it helps to keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of an individual to be secure and not subject to unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. State v. Ryce , 303 Kan. 899, 909, 368 P.3d 342 (2016). Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights offers the same protections. Ryce , 303 Kan. at 909, 368 P.3d 342 ; State v. Williams , 297 Kan. 370, 376, 300 P.3d 1072 (2013). Under the Fourth Amendment and section 15, any warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls within one of the few established and well-delineated encounters recognized as a warrant exception. Ryce , 303 Kan. at 909, 368 P.3d 342.

Of the possible exceptions, the district court judge considered two: whether the stop was (1) a valid investigatory detention, also known as a Terry stop (and concluded it was not) or (2) a valid public safety stop (and concluded it was). See State v. Cleverly , 305 Kan. 598, 605, 385 P.3d 512 (2016) (listing some warrant exceptions, including investigative detentions and public safety stops). On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the same two exceptions but reached the opposite conclusions, holding the detention was not a valid safety stop but was a valid investigatory detention. Bates , 2021 WL 301896, at *3-4.

Bates petitioned for review and asks us to reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that the stop was a valid investigatory detention. He does not seek review of the ruling on which he prevailed before the Court of Appeals—that is, that the detention was not a valid public safety stop. It was the State that was adversely affected by that ruling. The State thus had the option of filing a cross-petition or conditional cross-petition for review to ask us to review that portion of the Court of Appeals decision. See Supreme Court Rule 8.03(c)(3) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 57) ("The purpose of a cross-petition is to seek review of specific holdings the Court of Appeals decided adversely to the cross-petitioner."). But it did not, and the Court of Appeals' holding that the detention was not a valid public safety stop is thus settled in Bates' favor. See State v. Taylor , 314 Kan. 166, 168, 496 P.3d 526 (2021).

This narrowing of the issues means we must determine only whether the officers conducted a valid investigatory detention. The district court judge held they did not, and Bates now argues we should defer to both the judge's findings of fact and his conclusion of law on that point. He also argues the Court of Appeals failed to analyze whether the judge's determination of no reasonable suspicion was based on substantial competent evidence (he contends it was). He also argues the Court of Appeals panel made factual findings to support its conclusion.

Given Bates' contention that the panel engaged in fact-finding, we set out in full the district court judge's findings of fact, omitting his citations to the record:

"1. On September 1, 2017, Officer Gilmer was dispatched to a 'suspicious character' call at 1906 N. Hood, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.

"2. The suspicious character was reported to be knocking on the front door of the residence at that address.

"3. The report was made by a 9-1-1 call.

"4. Officer Gilmer had no information about the description of the person or people knocking on the door or any involved vehicles.

"5. Officer Gilmer arrived in the area of 1906 N. Hood shortly after the 1:27 a.m. 9-1-1 call.

"6. Officer Gilmer observed a red mini-van parked on the street in front of or near the house at 1906 Hood.

"7. The red mini-van appeared to be running and the lights were on.

"8. Officer Gilmer saw no one outside the vehicle.

"9. It was dark outside.

"10. Officer Gilmer did not have his emergency overhead lights or sirens on when he arrived in the area of 1906 N. Hood.

"11. Officer Gilmer approached the vehicle on foot and shined his flashlight onto the vehicle. He did not recall having used his police car's overhead flashing lights up to this point.

"12. Officer Gilmer was wearing a green polo shirt and tan pants, and a badged vest.

"13. The vehicle drove off when Officer Gilmer walked up to the vehicle and shined his flashlight on it.

"14. Officer Gilmer did not announce himself as ‘police’ or say ‘stop’ when he approached the vehicle.

"15. Officer Gilmer communicated to another police officer to stop the vehicle.

"16. Officer Gilmer knew the neighborhood to have ‘a lot’ of larceny to autos, car break-ins, and residential burglaries.

"17. Officer Oliphant knew the area to have ‘a lot of vandalisms ... lot of burglaries ... lot of gang activity.’

"18. Officer Gilmer did not make contact with the 9-1-1 caller or the home prior to approaching the vehicle of interest at either 1906 N. Hood or in the alley.

"19. Officer Gilmer ‘heard’ Officer Oliphant stop the vehicle nearby and drove to that location.

"20. Upon Officer Gilmer's arrival about a minute later he found that the same vehicle which had driven away was now parked in an alleyway with its lights off, about one and a half blocks away from where he first saw it.

"21. When Officer Gilmer arrived at the alley, Officer Oliphant's police car emergency overhead lights were on.

"22. Officer Gilmer walked up to the passenger side of the vehicle, made contact with the passenger, and noted an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle.

"23. The passenger identified himself as Brown.

"24. Officer Gilmer has experienced cases of people knocking on a front door and then breaking into the rear of the home if no one answers the door.

"25. Officer Oliphant did not see people walking outside when he arrived in the area of 1906 N. Hood, prior to the vehicle driving away from Officer Gilmer.

"26. Officer Oliphant's emergency equipment was not activated when he was approaching 1906 N. Hood and he was not trying to stop the vehicle at that time.

"27. Officer Oliphant had a suspicion that the vehicle was involved in the door knocking.

"28. Officer Oliphant found the vehicle parked in an overgrown alleyway with its lights off.

"29. Officer Oliphant first drove by the parked car, realized he had missed something, then backed up, and activated his emergency equipment. The vehicle of interest had already stopped, parked, and had its headlights turned off when Officer Oliphant turned on his emergency equipment and parked in the street near the alley entrance.

"30. After Officer Gilmer arrived, both officers walked up to the vehicle.

"31. Officer Oliphant found it

...