State v. Cash, 121,467

• Decision Date: 02 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 121,467,121,467
• Citation: 483 P.3d 1047
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Aaron David CASH, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

483 P.3d 1047

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Aaron David CASH, Appellant.

No. 121,467

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed April 2, 2021.

Branden A. Bell, of Morgan Pilate LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Kendall S. Kaut, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

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

Aaron Cash appeals from the district court's decision to deny his motion to suppress drug evidence seized during a traffic stop. On review, Cash argues the arresting officer lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to extend the traffic stop to ask questions about a plastic baggie and a Crown Royal bag that were hanging out of a partially opened safe on the rear floorboard of the van Cash was driving. This investigation ultimately led to a search of the van that uncovered drug and drug paraphernalia evidence for which Cash was later charged—evidence that Cash argues should have been excluded because the stop was unlawfully extended. At the motion to suppress hearing, the district court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and denied Cash's motion. Following a bench trial on stipulated facts, the court convicted Cash of multiple drug charges. A majority panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's suppression ruling. This court granted Cash's petition for review of the decision below. Because the totality of circumstances as viewed by a trained law enforcement officer gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring during the traffic stop, we affirm.

FACTS

After an August 2018 traffic stop, the State charged Cash with possession of methamphetamine, possession of diazepam, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Cash moved the district court to suppress evidence found as a result of the traffic stop, arguing that Lenexa Police Officer Caitlin Demarest violated Cash's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, he asserted that the initial stop was unjustified, Demarest illegally extended the duration and scope of the traffic stop, and Demarest lacked the requisite probable cause to search the van Cash was driving.

At the hearing on Cash's motion, the State called Officer Demarest as its lone witness. On direct examination, Demarest testified that she was on patrol one evening in late August 2018 when she saw a white van driving without a registration decal on the license plate. When she ran the license plate number, the dispatcher advised her that the plate was registered to a Chevrolet Venture, which was the correct make and model of the van. However, Demarest mistakenly heard "Chevrolet Avenger," which led her to believe that the license plate did not belong to the van. She initiated a traffic stop based on these two perceived infractions.

Officer Demarest approached the van and made contact with Cash. Cash identified himself and explained that he did not own the van, but he gave her the correct owner's name. Demarest asked for the van's registration and insurance information, but Cash had trouble locating it and began rifling through several pieces of paper. While Cash was doing that, Demarest shined her flashlight toward the back of the van. On the rear floorboard, she noticed a partially opened flat safe. Hanging out of the safe was a plastic baggie and a Crown Royal bag. Demarest testified she could not see what was inside either bag at the time. But Demarest went on to say that when she had come across Crown Royal bags in the past, she "more often than not" found drug paraphernalia in them. She said she had seen this "[m]ultiple times" before. Based on that experience, Demarest asked Cash to open the safe, and Cash complied. As he opened the safe, Demarest observed orange hypodermic needle caps inside the plastic baggie. According to Demarest, she asked Cash to leave the safe door open, but he slammed the door shut and exclaimed, " 'I think there's a pipe in there.' "

Officer Demarest called for backup. Once her backing officer arrived, she asked Cash to step out of the van. Cash once again told Demarest that there was a methamphetamine pipe in the safe. At this point, Demarest believed she had probable cause to search the van. Before doing so, however, she ran Cash's information and discovered there was a warrant for his arrest. Demarest arrested Cash and placed him in the back of her patrol car. Demarest testified she and her backing officer then searched the van, during which they discovered methamphetamine, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia.

Before questioning Officer Demarest on cross-examination, defense counsel introduced into evidence her body camera video from the stop. The video was played in open court. After redirect by the State and closing arguments, the district court issued its ruling from the bench. First, it found that the initial stop was valid because the evidence established the van's license plate did not have a registration sticker, which violated K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-142. Second, it found that Officer Demarest extended the duration and scope of the initial stop. But the court held that Demarest had the requisite reasonable suspicion to extend the stop once she observed the plastic baggie and Crown Royal bag hanging out of the safe. For this reason, the court denied Cash's motion to suppress.

The matter proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts, and the district court found Cash guilty on all counts. The court sentenced him to 1 year of probation subject to an underlying 11-month prison term.

On appeal, Cash argued that Officer Demarest unlawfully extended the duration and scope of the traffic stop when she questioned him about the safe without having any reasonable suspicion of a crime. The State conceded that the stop was extended but argued Demarest had reasonable suspicion that a drug crime was occurring once she saw the plastic baggie and the Crown Royal bag hanging out of the partially opened safe. A majority panel affirmed the district court's denial of Cash's suppression motion. In analyzing the totality of the circumstances, the majority panel held that Demarest had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop when she saw the plastic baggie and the Crown Royal bag hanging out of the safe. In support of this holding, the majority cited Demarest's training and her experience that a "Crown Royal bag 'more often than not' contains drug paraphernalia." State v. Cash , No. 121,467, 2020 WL 1482413, at *4 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion). It then concluded that Demarest had the "minimum level of objective justification required to support a reasonable suspicion." 2020 WL 1482413, at *4.

Judge Buser dissented, disagreeing with the majority's legal conclusion that under these totality of circumstances Officer Demarest had articulable facts to constitute reasonable suspicion that the Crown Royal bag contained drug paraphernalia. First, Judge Buser noted that Demarest did not testify in any detail about her drug stop training and experience, which he believed was necessary to establish an adequate foundation for her stated suspicion that Crown Royal bags often contain drug paraphernalia. Second, Judge Buser believed it significant that Demarest never explicitly testified that it was both the Crown Royal bag and the plastic baggie together that made her suspicious of drug activity. Finally, Judge Buser pointed to two prior cases—a Kansas Supreme Court case and an unpublished Court of Appeals case—to support his argument that reliance on innocent items such as empty plastic baggies or Crown Royal bags by themselves could not provide a valid basis for reasonable suspicion. 2020 WL 1482413, at *5 (Buser, J., dissenting).

Cash timely filed a petition for review challenging the legality of extending the duration of the stop to investigate possible drug activity.

ANALYSIS

On a motion to suppress, an appellate court generally reviews the district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and reviews the ultimate legal conclusion de novo. An appellate court does not reweigh evidence. State v. Jones , 300 Kan. 630, 638, 333 P.3d 886 (2014). Where, as here, the underlying facts are undisputed, this court's analysis will focus only on the legal conclusions drawn from those facts. See State v. Hanke , 307 Kan. 823, 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018). The State bears the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful. K.S.A. 22-3216(2).

When a law enforcement officer conducts a routine traffic stop on a public roadway, a seizure of the driver occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Jones , 300 Kan. at 637, 333 P.3d 886. As this court has recognized, a traffic stop is analogous to an investigative detention; as such, it is treated as a nonconsensual police-citizen contact under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). "In order for a law enforcement officer's seizure of a citizen to be constitutionally reasonable, the officer must know of specific and articulable facts that create a reasonable suspicion the seized individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime or traffic infraction." Jones , 300 Kan. at 637, 333 P.3d 886. To be valid, an investigative detention must be justified at its inception, and it must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the initial interference. State v. Jimenez , 308 Kan. 315, 323, 420 P.3d 464 (2018).

On review, Cash does not challenge the initial stop. Rather, he contends the duration and scope of the initial traffic stop were unlawfully extended into an investigation of criminal drug activity. In a traffic...