KS: Pleading facts doesn’t plead specific 4A claims; this specific claim is waived for lack of development below

Defendant’s argument in the district court was that the package was subjected to detention without reasonable suspicion, and he did not argue that the package was detained too long. His statement of facts isn’t enough for the court to have to exclude every other hypothesis. State v. Ton, 2018 Kan. LEXIS 366 (July 26, 2018):

Yet we were wary of the defendant’s argument that he had to do no more than “‘state facts'” when alleging a Fourth Amendment violation and that it was the State’s burden to “refute all possible theories of unlawfulness that might flow from the stated facts.” That interpretation of the parties’ burdens left it to the district court to “connect the dots between the stated facts in order to intuit the defense’s theory of how they constitute a Fourth Amendment violation.” Estrada-Vital, 302 Kan. at 557.