{"id":5128,"date":"2011-12-19T16:04:44","date_gmt":"2011-01-26T00:47:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-25T21:32:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5128","title":{"rendered":"KS: Call for a backup officer conveyed to the defendant she was not free to leave"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The call for a backup officer conveyed to the defendant she was not free to leave. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.kscourts.org\/Cases-and-Opinions\/opinions\/SupCt\/2011\/20110121\/98123.pdf\">State v. Thomas<\/a>, 291 Kan. 676, 246 P.3d 678 (2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We conclude that Officer Brown\u2019s call for back-up, when combined with his other conduct, would convey to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to refuse to answer Brown\u2019s questions or otherwise terminate the second stage of the encounter. See State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. at 552. More specifically, both before and after making the call, Brown repeatedly asked Thomas questions about her drug use and possession. After the call, Thomas emptied her pockets for him, apparently in an attempt to prove her denials. He then asked to feel inside her pockets, and she threw her hands in the air. After Brown again told Thomas to \u201cbe honest with me,\u201d she confessed to possessing two crack pipes. In contrast to the first stage, at no time during the second stage did Brown tell Thomas she was free to leave. See State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 811, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007) (a clear communication that the person is free to terminate the encounter or refuse to answer questions is a factor in determining the coercive effect of the encounter); State v. Reason, 263 Kan. 405, 414, 951 P.2d 538 (1997).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The exclusionary rule does not apply in driver\u2019s license revocation proceedings. [This was never a given in the opinion; it is well considered and considers plenty of authority before coming to this conclusion.] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nmcompcomm.us\/nmcases\/nmca\/slips\/CA29,453.pdf\">Glynn v. State Taxation &amp; Revenue Dep\u2019t<\/a>, 2011 NMCA 31, 149 N.M. 518, 252 P.3d 742 (2011), Certiorari Denied, 2011 N.M. LEXIS 115 (N.M., Mar. 8, 2011).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5128\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-5128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5128","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=5128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}