State v. Julian

• Decision Date: 05 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. 105,695.,105,695.
• Citation: 333 P.3d 172
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Allen R. JULIAN, Appellee.

333 P.3d 172

STATE of Kansas, Appellant,

v.Allen R. JULIAN, Appellee.

No. 105,695.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Sept. 5, 2014.

Recognized as Unconstitutional

West's K.S.A. 22–2501(c)

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution constitutes the baseline protection against unreasonable searches. No state may authorize searches on grounds more permissive than the Fourth Amendment allows. States are, however, allowed to adopt rules more protective of individual rights than the Fourth Amendment requires.

2. While it was in effect, K.S.A. 22–2501 represented a codification of the authority to make warrantless searches incident to arrest. It also represented the State's authority to adopt measures more protective of an individual's rights than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires.

3. While it was in effect, K.S.A. 22–2501 governed warrantless searches incident to arrest in Kansas and set forth the permissible circumstances, purposes, and scope of such searches.

4. In this case, this was a warrantless search of a vehicle for evidence incident to arrest, conducted at a time when searches incident to arrest were governed in Kansas by statute, and the statute in effect at the time did not authorize searches for the purpose of discovering evidence. The search of the defendant's vehicle was therefore illegal.

Natalie A. Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause, and Scott E. McPherson, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellant.

Gregory D. Bell, of Forker Suter LLC, of Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

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

We consider this case on a petition for review filed by Allen R. Julian. He contends that evidence seized from his automobile in a warrantless search incident to his arrest should be suppressed. The district court granted Julian's motion to suppress. The State filed an interlocutory appeal. A divided Court of Appeals panel held that the search was authorized by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), and reversed the district court's suppression order. State v. Julian, No. 105,695, 2012 WL 1759405 (Kan.App.2012) (unpublished opinion).

This was a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to arrest for the purpose of discovering evidence. At the time the search was conducted, searches incident to arrest in Kansas were governed by statute. K.S.A. 22–2501 (repealed July 1, 2011). At the time of the search of Julian's vehicle, K.S.A. 22–2501 did not authorize searches for evidence. The search of Julian's vehicle was therefore illegal.

We conclude that by relying on Fourth Amendment caselaw rather than the Kansas statute governing searches incident to arrest, the district court and the Court of Appeals applied the incorrect legal standard to this case. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reached an incorrect result. The trial court reached the correct result, but it did so for the wrong reasons.

Factual and Procedural Background

The material facts are not in dispute.

On January 17, 2010, Rice County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Pieplow stopped Allen Julian for driving a vehicle with a defective headlight. Pieplow had prior reports that Julian was involved in methamphetamine manufacture but, prior to the stop, had no grounds to believe Julian's car contained anything illegal.

As Pieplow approached Julian's car, he saw Julian make what he described as “furtive movements,” consisting of Julian raising a blanket and appearing to shove items underneath it. Pieplow removed Julian from the car and placed him under arrest when he could not produce proof of insurance. Incident to the arrest, Pieplow conducted a pat down search. He found a loaded firearm in Julian's jacket pocket and a metal tin containing marijuana, two knives, rolling papers, and lighters in his pants pocket.

Pieplow placed Julian under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pieplow secured Julian in the back of his patrol car and went back to Julian's car to search it. He testified he was searching for more marijuana and items used to manufacture methamphetamine. Pieplow found a bowling bag containing items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine.

In addition to the traffic violations for defective headlight and no proof of insurance, the State charged Julian with five felonies: (1) attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, (2) possession of pseudoephedrine, (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, (4) possession of marijuana, and (5) possession of a firearm.

Julian filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his vehicle. The district court granted his motion. The State pursued an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the suppression ruling by a 2–1 vote.

This court granted Julian's petition for review.

Standard of Review

If the material facts are not in dispute, review of a decision on a motion to suppress evidence is a question of law subject to de novo review. The State bears the burden to demonstrate a warrantless search was lawful. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. ––––, 326 P.3d 1039, 1043 (2014).

Searches Incident to Arrest: 1969 to Present

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures. Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides similar protection. State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 772, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). The Fourth Amendment contemplates that a “reasonable,” and, thus, a constitutionally valid search, is one conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer based on a factual showing of probable cause. Warrantless searches “conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 390, 99 P.3d 1108 (2004).

A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). The justification for the exception “derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. at 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710. The Fourth Amendment constitutes the baseline protection against unreasonable searches. No state may authorize searches on grounds more permissive than the Fourth Amendment allows. States are, however, allowed to adopt rules more protective of individual rights than the baseline Fourth Amendment protection. A state may do this by its state constitution, court decision, or statutory enactment.

Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects individuals and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures. This court has consistently held that the protection afforded by § 15 of the Kansas Constitution is co-extensive with the Fourth Amendment protection. State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, Syl. ¶ 5, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010); State v. Henning, 289 Kan. 136, Syl. ¶ 4, 209 P.3d 711 (2009).

While it was in effect, K.S.A. 22–2501 represented a codification of the authority to make warrantless searches incident to arrest. It also represented the State's authority to adopt measures more protective of an individual's rights than the Fourth Amendment requires. Conn, 278 Kan. at 391, 99 P.3d 1108; State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16–22, 910 P.2d 180 (1996).

Although this case turns on application of K.S.A. 22–2501 to the search at issue, a brief review of Fourth Amendment caselaw developments related to searches incident to arrest between 1969 and 2009 is appropriate for reasons of context and to assist in understanding the interrelation of the statute and the permissible constitutional parameters of searches incident to arrest.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a person's entire home incident to the person's arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. It limited the search to the area “from which the person arrested might obtain weapons or evidentiary items.” Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 766, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), reh. denied396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 36, 24 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969). The Court found that the warrantless search of the arrestee's person and the area “within his immediate control” was not contrary to the Fourth Amendment. 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034.

The year after Chimel was decided, Kansas adopted a statute pertaining to warrantless searches incident to arrest. K.S.A. 22–2501 provided:

“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.” L.1970, ch. 129, sec. 22–2501.

When it was enacted, K.S.A. 22–2501 represented a codification of existing federal law on warrantless searches incident to arrest, as expressed in Chimel. See State v. Youngblood, 220 Kan. 782, 784, 556 P.2d 195 (1976).

In 1981, the United States Supreme Court applied Chimel to a warrantless search of an automobile incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle. The Court held that when there has been a lawful arrest of the occupant of a vehicle, the officer “as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest” may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and any containers found therein. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, reh. denied453 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 26, 69 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1981).

Belton was widely...