State v. Bravo-Zamora
| Decision Date | 09 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | 109,998. |
| Citation | 340 P.3d 1236 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Carlos BRAVO–ZAMORA, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before PERRON, P.J., BRUNS and SCHROEDER, JJ.
Carlos Bravo–Zamora was the passenger in a vehicle lawfully stopped for a traffic violation. We find the officer illegally extended the stop after issuing the ticket and releasing the driver when he subsequently told the driver, “Hang on one second.” The illegal detention of the driver and passenger requires the suppression of all evidence seized since the consent given in this case does not purge the taint of the officers' illegal detention. Reversed and remanded with directions.
On August 10, 2009, Detective James Waller was on patrol for the Merriam Police Department. He was notified by dispatch the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) had observed a gold minivan leaving a known drug house and had reason to believe methamphetamine ice was in the minivan. Waller was informed the minivan was traveling southbound on I–35 and was being followed by a DEA or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) vehicle. Waller was instructed to find a traffic violation to support stopping the minivan to search it for drugs. Waller spotted a silver minivan, and because he did not see any other minivans in the area, began following it. Waller observed the minivan crossing the yellow traffic line and initiated a traffic stop.
As Waller approached the minivan, he noticed the driver and passenger were not wearing seatbelts. The driver identified herself as Amy Lawson, and her passenger was identified as Carlos Bravo–Zamora. They had their 1–year–old baby in the backseat. When Waller asked Lawson for her driver's license and proof of insurance, Lawson was only able to produce an expired insurance card. Waller also asked for Bravo–Zamora's driver's license or identification because he was not wearing a seatbelt.
Waller returned to his police vehicle to check for any wants and warrants on Lawson and Bravo–Zamora, to see if Lawson had a valid driver's license, and to call the DEA for additional information on why the DEA agent wanted the minivan pulled over. Waller was on the phone with the DEA agent for approximately 1 to 1–1/2 minutes. The DEA agent told Waller the minivan had left a known drug house in Kansas City, and the DEA wanted Waller to identify the passenger and/or build his own drug case. Waller wrote Lawson a ticket for crossing over the left lane yellow line and for a seatbelt violation. Waller also wrote Bravo–Zamora a ticket for his seatbelt violation.
While Waller was filling out the ticket, he is heard on the traffic stop video stating: After determining Bravo–Zamora did not have a warrant, Waller is heard on the traffic stop video stating: It is unclear if Waller was talking to the DEA agent or his supervisor. Approximately 10 minutes into the traffic stop, Waller was contacted over the radio by his supervisor and asked, “Are you waiting for a phone call or something?” Waller responded, Waller waited for the backing officer to arrive and then reapproached the minivan with the backing officer on the driver's side. At this point, the stop had been proceeding for about 15 minutes. Waller had Lawson exit the minivan, and he explained she was receiving tickets for crossing the center line, failure to wear a seatbelt, and driving with expired insurance. Waller then returned her identification and asked her to wait with the backing officer while he talked to Bravo–Zamora. Waller then leaned in the driver's side window and explained Bravo–Zamora's ticket for failure to wear a seatbelt.
After talking to Bravo–Zamora, Waller returned to Lawson and asked if she had any questions, and when she said no, Waller told Lawson to drive safe. However, before Lawson could get back into her minivan, the backing officer whispered something in Waller's ear. Waller turned to Lawson and said, “Hang on one second.” After speaking to the backing officer, Waller recontacted Lawson and asked if there was anything illegal such as drugs or weapons in the minivan. When Waller asked for consent to search the minivan, Lawson asked why and if it was because Waller thought she was drunk. Waller chuckled, said no, and again asked for consent to search the minivan. Lawson ultimately gave her consent.
A search of the minivan revealed methamphetamine in a diaper bag. While handcuffed, Bravo–Zamora admitted the methamphetamine was his and stated Lawson had no idea he had drugs in the minivan. Bravo–Zamora was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of possession of more than 1 gram of methamphetamine upon which no Kansas tax has been paid or an official stamp or other indicia affixed thereto. Bravo–Zamora was placed in handcuffs but was not informed he was under arrest. At the preliminary hearing, Waller testified that prior to obtaining Lawson's consent to search the minivan, he did not believe he had any reasonable suspicion to extend the stop.
Before trial, Bravo–Zamora moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search and all future evidence obtained under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the officers had illegally detained him and Lawson, making the consent involuntary. The State argued the evidence should not be suppressed because Waller had reasonable suspicion to stop the minivan simply based off the tip from the DEA agent under the fellow-officer rule. The district court denied Bravo–Zamora's motion to suppress relying on Kansas' recognition of the fellow-officer rule. The court found that “the facts known to the federal officers may be imputed to Officer Waller in determining this question of reasonable suspicion or ultimately whether there is probable cause to make an arrest in the case.” Further, the court held that 20 minutes was not an unreasonable extension of the traffic stop under the circumstances to search for drugs and/or attempt to obtain consent. Finally, the court used an objective standard to determine whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. The court found that under the circumstances, the language and communications between Waller and Lawson were not contentious, thus, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave and free to deny permission to search the minivan. The district court held the detainment ended when Lawson gave the officers permission to search the minivan. At trial Bravo–Zamora renewed his objections to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the minivan being searched.
On December 12, 2012, Bravo–Zamora agreed to a bench trial on stipulated facts and was found guilty on all counts. Bravo–Zamora was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment with 24 months' postrelease supervision. The district court granted Bravo–Zamora a dispositional departure to probation for 18 months.
Bravo–Zamora argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Bravo–Zamora claims Waller illegally extended the traffic stop when he told Lawson, “Hang on one second,” and the district court should have granted Bravo–Zamora's motion to suppress because the consent to search the minivan resulted from an illegally extended traffic stop.
In reviewing a district court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress, appellate courts review the underlying factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard but the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those findings under a de novo standard. The appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Martinez, 296 Kan. 482, 485, 293 P.3d 718 (2013). Substantial evidence refers to legal and relevant evidence a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. State v. May, 293 Kan. 858, 862, 269 P.3d 1260 (2012). The State has the burden of proving a search and seizure was lawful. State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 985, 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
When the trial court has denied a motion to suppress, the moving party must object to the introduction of that evidence at the time it was offered at trial to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 726, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011). However, in a bench trial consisting solely of stipulated facts, the lack of contemporaneous objection does not prevent review of the suppression issue. State v. Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, 594, 285 P.3d 1026 (2012) ; State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743, 746–47, 268 P.3d 481 (2012). “A defendant who is tried solely on stipulated facts timely interposes an objection to the admission of evidence by filing a motion under K.S.A. 22–3216(3) to suppress evidence and, in doing so, satisfies the requirements of K.S.A. 60–404, even if an objection to the evidence is not stated at trial.” Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, Syl. ¶ 1. Bravo–Zamora timely objected to the admission of the evidence at his bench trial on stipulated facts and as such, satisfied the requirements of K.S.A. 60–404.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights assures each person's right to be secure in his or her person and property against unreasonable searches and seizures. “The question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial