KS: Driver has standing to challenge search of a car

Defendant was a passenger in a car and was ordered out and to put his hands on the roof. He was patted down and no weapon was found. A further search was unjustified, and it was suppressed. The patdown revealed no weapon or apparent contraband. On the state’s argument that the defendant was guilty of constructive possession, there was no evidence that the defendant could even see what was hidden in the car. Wynn v. State, 14 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. App. 2DCA 2009).*

The driver of a car, with the apparent consent of the owner, has a sufficient privacy interest in the car to contest the stop and search of the car. The weapons search of the car was justified under Long because the car was stopped on suspicion of aggravated battery and an occupant being on federal supervised release for drugs. State v. Preston, 41 Kan. App. 2d 981, 207 P.3d 1081 (2009).*

“The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the procedure used to draw the suspect’s blood include the qualifications of the person drawing the blood, the environment in which the blood was drawn, and the manner in which the blood was drawn.” (quoting Schmerber). State v. Davis, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1034, 207 P.3d 281 (2009).*

The occupants of a car gave inconsistent versions of where they were going. This gave RS, and the officer threatened to get a drug dog, and the occupants consented to a search. It was reasonable under the circumstances. State v. Baum, 199 N.J. 407, 972 A.2d 1127 (2009).*

[posted 6/21]