State v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 94,313.,94,313. |
| Citation | 133 P.3d 146 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Slone C. HAYES, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Randall E. Fisher, of Law Office of Randall E. Fisher, of Newton, for appellant.
Michael X. Llamas, assistant county attorney, and Phill Kline, attorney general, for appellee.
Before McANANY, P.J., PIERRON and CAPLINGER, JJ.
Slone Hayes appeals the district court's denial of her motion to suppress and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. She argues the police officer who stopped the vehicle in which she was a passenger was outside of his jurisdiction at the time of the stop, requiring dismissal of the charges. She further asserts that the stop was unlawful because the driver of the vehicle was detained longer than necessary for purposes of the initial traffic stop, and the driver's subsequent consent was tainted by the illegal stop.
We affirm the trial court's denial of Hayes' motion to dismiss, finding the officer had jurisdiction to make the stop pursuant to K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-2401a(2)(b). However, we reverse the trial court's denial of Hayes' motion to suppress based upon our conclusion that the driver was detained longer than necessary to complete the traffic stop and her subsequent consent did not purge the taint of the illegal detention.
On October 18, 2004, at 2:25 a.m., City of Newton Police Officer Bryan Hall responded to a call for assistance from a fellow officer located at mile marker 33 on Interstate 135 (I-135) in Newton. As he traveled east on Highway 50 to I-135 North, Hall left the city limits. However, before Hall arrived at his destination, the call for assistance was cancelled.
Hall continued to travel east on Highway 50, knowing he would reenter the city limits at the Anderson Avenue exit. Just before he reached that exit, Hall observed a vehicle east of the exit and within the city limits traveling westbound approximately 8 miles over the speed limit. Hall turned around and caught up with the vehicle outside city limits. Hall activated his emergency lights and pulled the vehicle over.
Officer Hall then proceeded to ask the driver, Cleopatra Nichols, a series of questions, including where she was headed; why she was on Highway 50 east instead of I-135 north; where she lived; why her vehicle had Virginia plates; and how long she and her passenger, Slone Hayes, had been traveling together. Nichols responded to each of these questions in turn, indicating that she and Hayes were traveling to Junction City from Arkansas, where Nichols had dropped off her child; that she apparently was lost because she thought she was on I-135; that she lived in Junction City but had Virginia license plates because she was in the military, stationed at Fort Riley; and that she and Hayes had been traveling for 2 days.
Officer Hall testified that as he questioned Nichols, he looked for evidence she and Hayes had been traveling. Hall documented his findings in his police report:
Hall returned to his patrol car and ran computer checks, but nothing came back suspect. Hall also called for a back-up officer and waited for the other officer to arrive before again contacting Nichols.
At the preliminary hearing, Hall testified regarding his subsequent contact with Nichols:
Officer Hall's preliminary hearing testimony essentially repeated the information in his police report. Hall's suppression hearing testimony, however, differed as to his conversation with Nichols when he returned her documentation:
Rather than provide Nichols with directions as Hall had indicated he would, Hall testified he then questioned Nichols again about her destination and where she had come from. Hall also asked Nichols about her relationship to Hayes and asked if Nichols had any weapons in her car, to which she laughingly responded no. However, according to Hall, when he asked Nichols if she had drugs in her car, she sheepishly responded no. Hall testified this led him to believe there might be narcotics in the vehicle.
Hall then asked Nichols if she minded if he searched her vehicle, and Nichols replied yes, while motioning with her hand towards the vehicle. Hall clarified with Nichols that she was agreeing to permit him to search the vehicle, and she again responded yes. At this point, Hall asked Hayes to step out of the vehicle and stand with the officer who had arrived to assist Hall.
Hall searched the vehicle and found an "Oreo Minis" cup containing a small ziploc bag of marijuana. The State charged Hayes with possession of a marijuana without a drug tax stamp, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. However, the State dismissed the tax stamp charge after the subsequent KBI lab report indicated the marijuana weighed less than the 28 grams required to charge the defendant with failure to affix a drug tax stamp. See K.S.A. 79-5202; K.S.A. 79-5204; K.S.A.2005 Supp. 79-5205; K.S.A. 79-5208.
In the district court, Hayes moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arguing Hall was outside his jurisdiction at the time of the stop. Hayes also filed a motion to suppress arguing Hall unjustifiably prolonged the detention and Nichols' consent to search was involuntary. At the suppression hearing, the district court denied the motion to dismiss finding Hall had jurisdiction to conduct the stop outside the city limits because he was in "fresh pursuit" pursuant to K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-2401a(2)(b).
The district court issued a letter decision denying the motion to suppress based upon a finding the traffic stop became a consensual encounter after Officer Hall returned Nichols' documentation. The district court made no factual findings, provided no legal authority for its decision, but did indicate an intent to issue a more detailed decision at a later time. However, the record contains no such subsequent decision.
At the bench trial, the parties stipulated to the facts presented in the preliminary hearing, the suppression hearing, and the officers' reports. The district court found Hayes guilty of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, and noted Hayes reserved her right to appeal the legal issues raised in her prior motions.
Hayes appeals, arguing the district court erred in finding Officer Hall had jurisdiction to conduct the traffic stop pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-2401a(2)(b). She further argues the district court erroneously denied her motion to suppress because the driver and she were detained longer than necessary to complete the traffic stop, and the driver's subsequent consent did not purge the taint of the illegal detention. Finally, Hayes argues the district court erred by finding sufficient evidence to bind her over for trial on the charge of possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp.
Initially, we note this latter issue is moot as the State ultimately dismissed the tax stamp charge. See State v. Aleman, 16 Kan.App.2d 784, 786, 830 P.2d 64, rev. denied 251 Kan. 940 (1992) ().
Officer's jurisdiction for the stop
Hayes first argues the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss as Hall was outside his jurisdiction at the time of the stop. Because this issue involves interpretation of K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-2401a(2)(b), we exercise unlimited review. See State v. Maass, 275 Kan. 328, 330, 64 P.3d 382 (2003).
In relevant part, K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-2401a(2)(b) states: "Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers:. . . (b) in any . . . place when . . . in fresh pursuit." K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-2401a(9)(d) defines "fresh pursuit" as "pursuit, without unnecessary delay, of a person who has committed a crime, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime."
Without benefit of authority, Hayes argues Hall was not in fresh pursuit because Hall was outside the city limits and not in pursuit of Nichols when he first saw Nichols commit a traffic violation. We find no basis to conclude the "fresh pursuit" provision of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thompson
...occurred when motorist saw the emergency lights and submitted to officer's show of authority by not fleeing); State v. Hayes, 35 Kan.App.2d 616, 624-26, 133 P.3d 146 (2006) (considered several factors in holding that encounter was not voluntary, including whether other officers were present......
-
State v. Thompson, No. 94,254 (Kan. 10/17/2007)
...occurred when motorist saw the emergency lights and submitted to officer's show of authority by not fleeing); State v. Hayes, 35 Kan. App. 2d 616, 624-26, 133 P.3d 146 (2006) (considered several factors in holding that encounter was not voluntary, including whether other officers were prese......
-
State v. Young, 96,115.
...investigatory detention which the officer attempts to transform into a consensual encounter are problematic. See State v. Hayes, 35 Kan.App.2d 616, 626, 133 P.3d 146 (2006); State v. Moore, 34 Kan.App.2d 795, 802, 124 P.3d 1054 (2005), aff'd 283 Kan. ___, 154 P.3d 1 (2007). However, this is......
-
State v. Wendler
...violation and the consent, intervening circumstances, and particularly the purpose and flagrancy of the officer's misconduct.” State v. Hayes, 35 Kan.App.2d 616, Syl. ¶ 11, 133 P.3d 146 (2006). “No single factor is necessarily dispositive.” Martin, 285 Kan. 994, Syl. ¶ 4, 179 P.3d 457. Ther......