Officers encountered defendant for a welfare check. When it was obvious he was not in need of any help, it was unreasonable to keep his DL and run it for warrants. Strieff does not apply. State v. Manwarren, 2019 Kan. App. LEXIS 20 (Apr. 12, 2019):
The State brings this interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by Richard W. Manwarren II. The case involves what both parties agree began as a welfare check or public safety stop involving Manwarren and a law enforcement officer in Reno County. But after it was clear to the officer that Manwarren was not in need of any help, the officer requested and retained Manwarren’s identification card to run a warrant check. When the officer discovered an outstanding warrant for Manwarren, the officer arrested him and found drugs and drug paraphernalia on his person. The district court suppressed the evidence, finding that the detention was illegal and that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the attenuation doctrine should be applied to allow the admission of the evidence.
On appeal, the State argues that the entire encounter between Manwarren and the officer was voluntary and not a seizure; but if the encounter was an unlawful seizure, then the taint of any illegal detention was attenuated by the discovery of the unrelated and valid arrest warrants, making the evidence admissible under Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 195 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2016). For the reasons we will carefully explain in this opinion, we disagree with the State and affirm the district court’s judgment.