State v. Martinez
| Citation | 293 P.3d 718 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 99,595.,99,595. |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Melvin Hernandez MARTINEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
1. An appellate court reviews the district court's decision on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. Without reweighing the evidence, the district court's findings of fact are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. A de novo standard of review is then used to review the ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence.
2. Encounters between law enforcement officers and the public are generally classified under one of four categories: (a) consensual encounters; (b) investigatory detentions, also known as Terry stops; (c) public safety stops; and (d) arrests.
3. Officers may conduct an investigatory stop only when there is reasonable suspicion the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. K.S.A. 22–2402(1).
4. In reviewing a law enforcement officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under K.S.A. 22–2402(1), the officer must be able to articulate more than a mere hunch of criminal activity to fall within the statutory criteria.Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, Sara Pfeiffer, legal intern, Phill Kline, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
In this petition for review, we consider whether a district court properly denied a motion to suppress drug evidence found on Melvin Hernandez Martinez after law enforcement officers seized him under the suspicion that he knew the whereabouts of someone for whom police had a warrant. Martinez argues the officers conducted an unlawful investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion. A divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. We reverse that decision.
Two law enforcement officers attempting to serve a felony arrest warrant on Alex Aguirre, a juvenile, went to an apartment where he was believed to be living. The officers spoke with two of Aguirre's sisters, who said he moved to Mexico the previous weekend. The officers left and went to another building in the complex because they had information Aguirre occasionally went there. When no one answered, the officers walked back toward their patrol car and saw a maintenance worker, who said he had seen Aguirre several times since the weekend. The officers also had information that Aguirre had been involved that same week in an unrelated incident.
The officers returned to their patrol car and decided to circle back around the complex to Aguirre's address. In doing so, they saw a black Mustang backing out of a parking space located directly behind the door to Aguirre's apartment. One officer said he recognized Martinez as the driver and previously had seen Aguirre riding in the Mustang on multiple occasions. The officer believed the probability of Martinez knowing the whereabouts of Aguirre was “highly likely,” since he knew Aguirre had contact with Martinez.
As Martinez backed out, the officers stopped their patrol car inside one of two entry/exit ways into the parking lot. The officers approached Martinez' car on foot, began yelling “stop,” whistled, and gestured for him to stop. Both officers were in uniform at the time, and one had a weapon drawn.
Martinez stopped his car, got out, and started walking towards the officers. One officer told Martinez to stop and said that he did not need to get out of his car. Once Martinez began getting back into his car, the officers started walking toward the Mustang and could see Aguirre through a back window lying flat on his back with his arms at his sides in the back seat. One officer estimated 20 seconds passed from the time officers whistled at Martinez to stop and the time they saw Aguirre in the back seat. The officer said he believed Martinez had been coming from Aguirre's apartment because the only information officers had about Martinez being in the area was that Aguirre lived there.
Once officers saw Aguirre in the back seat, they arrested him for the warrant and then arrested Martinez for obstructing legal process. Martinez was transported to the police station, where officers found cocaine during a routine search of his person. He was alternatively charged with aiding a felon and obstructing legal process, but was acquitted of those charges. He was also charged with possession of cocaine, which is the subject of this appeal.
Martinez filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence and argued he was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment without reasonable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The motion was denied by the district court. The district court relied on a previous Court of Appeals decision, State v. Finley, 17 Kan.App.2d 246, 838 P.2d 904 (1992), in which officers were permitted to stop the defendant's car when they suspected he was linked to a complaint involving a screaming woman at a hotel. The court commented that the Finley decision “set the bar pretty low” as to what would constitute reasonable suspicion.
Over continued objections to the car stop, Martinez was ultimately convicted at a bench trial of possession of cocaine but was found not guilty of aiding a felon or obstructing legal process. He was sentenced to 12 months' probation with an underlying 10–month prison term.
A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny Martinez' motion to suppress. It held the officers' initial suspicion that Aguirre was in the car provided sufficient reason to stop Martinez as he drove away and it was reasonable for officers to assume that (1) the sisters told Aguirre the police were looking for him; (2) Martinez knew about the arrest warrant; and (3) Martinez would help Aguirre flee. State v. Martinez, No. 99,595, ––– Kan.App.2d ––––, 2009 WL 2143991 (Kan.App.2009) (unpublished opinion). In a dissenting opinion, Judge Michael B. Buser argued Martinez was stopped and seized and that officers did not have a basis for suspecting Martinez was involved in criminal activity. Martinez, 2009 WL 2143991, at *5 (Buser J., dissenting).
We granted Martinez' petition for review, which challenges the panel majority's holding that officers had reasonable suspicion for a Terry investigative stop.
Martinez maintains that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the drugs found on him because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and search him. When confronted with a challenge involving suppression of evidence, the State has the burden of demonstrating a challenged search or seizure was lawful. State v. Johnson, 293 Kan. 1, 4, 259 P.3d 719 (2011).
An appellate court generally reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. The trial court's findings are first reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. Appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve conflicting evidence. The ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence is then reviewed de novo. If the material facts in a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. 293 Kan. at 4, 259 P.3d 719. The facts in this case are uncontested, and the parties stipulated to them before the bench trial.
Encounters between law enforcement officers and the public are generally classified under one of the following four categories: consensual encounters; investigatory detentions, also known as Terry stops; public safety stops; and arrests. State v. Hill, 281 Kan. 136, 141, 130 P.3d 1 (2006).
The focus of our inquiry in this case is on Terry investigatory stops, named after the United States Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19–20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), in which the Court held that police may stop and frisk a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity and when officers have a reasonable belief the person poses a safety concern. Our legislature has codified this rule under K.S.A. 22–2402.
At the outset, we note the parties agree an investigatory stop occurred when police stopped Martinez. More than one officer was present, and those officers used a commanding tone of voice, told Martinez to stop, and attempted to control his ability to leave the driveway; one officer also displayed a weapon. Moreover, Martinez submitted to the officers' show of authority by stopping his car. See State v. Weaver, 259 Kan. 844, 849, 915 P.2d 746 (1996) (); see also State v. Walker, 292 Kan. 1, 6, 251 P.3d 618 (2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Beltran
...from conduct those outside the law enforcement field might view as entirely innocuous. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22-23, 27; State v. Martinez, 296 Kan. 482, Syl. ¶ 4, 293 P.3d 718 (2013) (district court erred in finding that an experienced officer with a hunch possessed a reasonable suspicion ......
-
Schreiner v. Hodge
...that those outside the law enforcement field might view as entirely innocuous. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22-23, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; State v. Martinez, 296 Kan. 482, Syl. ¶ 4, 293 P.3d 718 (2013) (district court erred in finding that an experienced officer with a hunch possessed a reasonable su......
-
State v. Guein
...encounters; (2) investigatory detentions, also known as Terry stops; (3) public safety stops; and (4) arrests. State v. Martinez , 296 Kan. 482, 485, 293 P.3d 718 (2013). Relevant to this case, an investigatory detention or Terry stop allows an officer to detain any person in a public place......
-
State v. Meitler, 111,697.
......If the material facts in a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.” State v. Martinez, 296 Kan. 482, 485, 293 P.3d 718 (2013) (citing State v. Johnson, 293 Kan. 1, 4, 259 P.3d 719 [2011] ). Our state and federal Constitutions protect citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied ––– U.S. ......