State v. Miller, No. 120,476
| Decision Date | 08 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 120,476 |
| Citation | 462 P.3d 201 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brittany Mija MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Rick Kittel, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Jacob M. Gontesky, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Green, P.J., Powell and Schroeder, JJ.
Brittany Mija Miller appeals the district court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. She argues that law enforcement illegally seized methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia from her person during a traffic stop, which was then extended into a drug investigation. Because Miller's arguments are unpersuasive, we affirm.
The State charged Miller with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Miller's charges stemmed from her interaction with Sergeant David Rollf during the early morning hours of March 2, 2018. Miller had been the passenger in Billy Adams' car. After pulling Adams' car over for a traffic violation, Sergeant Rollf became suspicious that Adams may be using or transporting drugs. During the drug investigation that followed, Sergeant Rollf discovered that Miller had an active warrant. And thus, Sergeant Rollf arrested Miller. Following her arrest, Miller disclosed that she had methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on her person.
Later, Miller moved to suppress the evidence of the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found on her person. Miller argued that Sergeant Rollf lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Adams' car to conduct the drug investigation. She then argued that "[b]ecause there was no break between the illegal detention and the discovery of the evidence," Sergeant Rollf's illegal detention "tainted the subsequent discovery of [her] identity, the knowledge of her outstanding warrant, and the recovery of evidence concealed on [her] person." The State responded that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct the drug investigation based on Adams' behavior during the traffic stop. Alternatively, the State responded that the police would have inevitably discovered Miller's methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia because of Miller's active warrant.
The district court held a hearing on Miller's motion to suppress evidence. Sergeant Rollf's testimony was the only evidence presented at the hearing. Sergeant Rollf testified that he had investigated hundreds, if not thousands, driving under the influence and drug investigations over his 20-year career. He further testified that he has training on the effects of different drugs on the body, such as how a person's eyes react to light and how a person's body moves when under the influence.
Sergeant Rollf explained that around 2 a.m. on March 22, 2018, he was sitting in his patrol car on the side of the road when Adams' car passed him. According to Sergeant Rollf, Adams' car initially caught his attention because it had no working taillights, heavy "rear-end damage," and a "broken out" rear windshield. He explained that based on the heavy damage to Adams' car, he believed it was "not a good decision" to drive the car, especially at night. After this, Sergeant Rollf explained that when he pulled up behind Adams' car, Adams' car made "a very aggressive" left turn from the right lane through a red traffic light. He asserted that based on the severity of Adams' car damage, the severity of the traffic violation, and the fact it was very early in the morning, he immediately suspected that Adams may be under the influence of drugs or in possession of drugs.
Sergeant Rollf next addressed what happened after pulling Adams' car over. According to Sergeant Rollf, after pulling Adams' car over and speaking to Adams, he became even more suspicious of drug use. He explained that after telling Adams why he had pulled his car over, Adams maintained that he had just picked up Miller and they were now going to a nearby Walmart to buy parts to fix his car. Sergeant Rollf testified that Adams' travel plans seemed implausible to him because he believed that Walmart would not have the parts necessary to fix Adams' car and because Adams did not live nearby:
"It was totally implausible that [Adams] would go from Ottawa[, where he lived,] to somewhere in northern Johnson County to pick up a friend, knowingly having heavy rear-end damage, no working lights, in the middle of the night, only to stop somewhere in the middle to suddenly have to fix his car."
Moreover, Sergeant Rollf testified that he was suspicious of Adams' appearance and mannerisms. He asserted that Adams' pupils remained constricted even when no light shined on them. And his speech and body movements were rapid. Sergeant Rollf explained that constricted pupils indicated opiate use while rapid speech and body movements indicated stimulant use. He further explained that habitual drug users often take both suppressants and stimulants together to counter the negative effects of each drug. In addition to the preceding, Sergeant Rollf testified that Adams avoided eye contact with him when explaining his travel plans, which made him question the veracity of his travel plans. This included Adams' contention that Miller was a friend. Sergeant Rollf explained that it seemed that Adams, Miller, and the other person in Adams' car did not really know each other, which was also "indicative of ... the drug world."
Sergeant Rollf testified that he spoke to Adams for about two or three minutes before going back to his patrol car to complete Adams' traffic ticket. Yet, he further testified that based on Adams' behavior during this initial contact, Sergeant Rollf believed that Adams was driving under the influence or transporting drugs. On that basis, Sergeant Rollf explained that when he returned to his patrol car, he asked for the closest K9 unit to come to his location to conduct a dog sniff of Adams' car.
Next, Sergeant Rollf testified that the K9 unit arrived before he gave Adams the traffic ticket. And he testified that once the K9 unit arrived, he asked Adams as well as the passengers of Adams' car to get out of the car so the K9 unit could safely conduct the dog sniff. It is unclear from the record on appeal when exactly Sergeant Rollf gave Adams the traffic ticket. Regardless, Sergeant Rollf testified that he spoke to Adams, Miller, and the other passenger in Adams' car while the K9 unit conducted the dog sniff. Sergeant Rollf alleged that during this conversation, both Miller and the other passenger repeated Adams' contention that they were going to Walmart to buy parts to fix Adams' car.
Sergeant Rollf testified that while this conversation was occurring, the K9 unit did a loop around the car and indicated the presence of drugs. According to Sergeant Rollf, at this juncture, he began searching Adams' car for drugs while another officer asked for the passengers' identification. He testified that the other officer "ran [Miller's] information through the computer system and found out that she had a warrant." As a result, Miller was arrested. Sergeant Rollf then testified that following her arrest, he warned Miller that if she brought drugs into the county jail, she would be charged with trafficking contraband. He testified that it was at this point, Miller told him that she had methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on her person.
Finally, Sergeant Rollf testified that he found no drugs inside Adams' car. And he testified that Adams passed the field sobriety testing that occurred after Miller's arrest. So, Sergeant Rollf never arrested Adams. Instead, after giving Adams his traffic ticket, Sergeant Rollf allowed Adams and his other passenger to drive away.
At the end of the hearing, the district court took the parties' arguments under advisement. The district court later denied Miller's motion for several reasons. First, the district court emphasized Adams' traffic violation, which included no taillights and driving through a red traffic light while turning left from the right lane. The district court found that Adams' driving was an indicator of impairment or other illegal activity. Then, the district court found that other factors indicated that Adams was engaging in illegal activity. Those factors included Adams' constricted pupils, rapid speech, rapid body movements, and implausible story about going to Walmart to fix his car. The district court then found that the preceding factors provided Sergeant Rollf with more than "just a hunch" that Adams was engaging in criminal activity.
With that in mind, the district court concluded that Sergeant Rollf had reason to extend the traffic stop for the purpose of conducting a drug investigation. Because law enforcement discovered Miller's outstanding warrant while searching Adams' car, the district court ruled that the discovery of Miller's warrant occurred during a permissible extension of the initial stop. In turn, the district court ruled that law enforcement properly discovered the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on Miller's person.
Next, the parties held a bench trial before the district court on stipulated facts. In the end, the district court found Miller guilty of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia possession. It then sentenced Miller to a controlling sentence of 18 months' probation with an underlying controlling sentence of 10 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' postrelease supervision.
Miller timely appealed.
An appellate court uses a bifurcated standard of review when considering the district court's denial of a motion to suppress. First, an appellate court reviews the district court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence. Second, an appellate court reviews the district court's ultimate legal conclusions de novo. State v. Hanke , 307 Kan. 823, 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018). Moreover, when considering the district court's factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial