{"id":4946,"date":"2011-03-05T12:24:11","date_gmt":"2010-11-27T16:29:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-27T16:29:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4946","title":{"rendered":"KS: Detention for no apparent reason that produces arrest warrant is not suppressed; warrant intervening circumstance"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was stopped for no apparent reason and his ID was checked, finding a warrant for his arrest. Under established precedent, the warrant was an intervening circumstance justifying the further detention. State v. Moralez<\/a>, 44 Kan. App. 2d 1078, 242 P.3d 223 (2010) (over a strong dissent):<\/p>\n

In summary, we find the facts herein to be difficult to distinguish from the facts of Martin<\/a> in any meaningful way. In both cases, the officers encountered a citizen with no suspicion of criminal activity. In both cases, the citizen was presumably unlawfully detained for a brief period of time. In both cases, there was nothing to suggest that the officers’ ultimate goal in contacting the citizen was to search the person for drugs. In both cases the officers requested the citizen’s identification and for no apparent reason decided to run a warrant check. In both cases, the officers detained the citizen until the warrant check was completed. In both cases, the officers discovered an outstanding arrest warrant and searched the citizen incident to the arrest which led to the seizure of evidence of a crime.<\/p>\n

In Martin<\/a>, the court held that the officers’ discovery of the outstanding arrest warrant was an intervening circumstance which sufficiently attenuated the taint of the unlawful detention so as to permit the admission of the evidence. 285 Kan. at 1005. The Court of Appeals is duty bound to follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent, absent some indication the court is departing from its previous position. … Based on Jones<\/a> and Martin<\/a>, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress the evidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}