State v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 09 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45706,45706 |
| Citation | 205 Kan. 442,469 P.2d 279 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Richard G. THOMAS, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A highway patrol trooper's search of appellant's person and the resulting seizure of cannabis, commonly known as marihuana, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, where the officer and his fellow trooper stopped the appellant and his companion on an interstate highway late at night after they observed his automobile weaving back and forth across the center line of the eastbound lanes and traveling 87 miles per hour in a 70 mile per hour zone; after being stopped, the appellant voluntarily consented to a search of his automobile for an 'open bottle'; in the course of the search an empty revolver holster was found in the glove compartment, and the incident search of appellant's person was justified by the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault the troopers or effect an escape; and, moreover, the search was reasonably limited in scope by that purpose, the trooper discovering, while patting down the appellant's outer clothing, a round hard object on the back of his leg which might have been used as a weapon.
Robert M. Brown, Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Gene M. Olander, County Atty., argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the violation of K.S.A. 65-2502-possession of cannabis, commonly known as marihuana.
The sole question presented is whether contraband introduced into evidence at the appellant's trial was the product of an illegal search and seizure contrary to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.
We hold it was not, for the reason only unreasonable searches and seizures are within the constitutional interdict.
The appellant and his companion were stopped on an interstate highway by two highway patrol troopers for a speeding violation- they were traveling 87 miles per hour in a 70 mile zone late at night. The arresting officers also noticed the car was weaving, which observation led to a search of the appellant's automobile with his consent for an 'open bottle.' (K.S.A. 41-804.)
In the course of the search, an empty revolver holster was found in the glove compartment. The officers told the appellant and his companion to place their hands on the hood of the vehicle, and one officer began the search for the possession of a concealed weapon. In the course of the search, a lump was found on the back of the appellant's leg and the trooper lifted the pant leg and removed a hard round object out of the top of appellant's sock, which was a rolled-up manila envelope. He handed the object to the other trooper and continued the search of appellant's companion where he found an empty holster. No weapons were found either on appellant or his companion, but a search of the trunk of the automobile produced a rifle and a shotgun.
The manila envelope contained cannabis which was received into evidence at the trial over appellant's objection. The appellant appeals from this ruling and the order overruling his motion for a new trial.
The provisions of the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. (Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746) The decision in effect requires this court to determine the reasonableness of a particular search under all the facts and circumstances of the case. (Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441) It is therefore necessary to apply an objective standard to determine whether the situation would warrant a reasonable man in taking the action under judicial investigation. (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790.)
Under the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. State
...during a "pat-down," turned out to be a manila envelope containing narcotics; they were held admissible. See also State v. Thomas, 469 P.2d 279, 205 Kan. 442 (1970), where marijuana concealed in the defendant's socks was admitted in evidence because weapons are often concealed in a defendan......
- State v. LeFort
-
State v. McClelland
...Kansas Bill of Rights prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. (State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596, 507 P.2d 233; State v. Thomas, 205 Kan. 442, 469 P.2d 279; Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 93 S.Ct. 2523.) The reasonableness of a search is to be determined from the ......
-
State v. Loudermilk, 46448
...of the Fourth Amendment prohibit only unreasonable searches and seizures. (State v. Wood, 197 Kan. 241, 416 P.2d 729; State v. Thomas, 205 Kan. 442, 469 P.2d 279; and Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. We turn then to the question whether the search of defendant and ......