KS: No bright line rule in whether a stop continues and becomes unreasonable

Eschewing bright line rules, Kansas weighs the factors of whether a stop is unreasonable. Here, it was reasonable. State v. Murphy, 42 Kan. App. 2d 933, 219 P.3d 1223 (2009)*:

Weighing on the side of a voluntary encounter are the following factors: Maschmeier returned the defendant’s documents, told the defendant he was free to go, and physically disengaged the defendant; there was only one officer present; there was no display of a weapon or physical touching by the officer; and the encounter occurred in a public place.

Weighing on the side of an illegal seizure are the following factors: Maschmeier did not ask the defendant permission to ask further questions before asking about the illegal contraband, and the officer’s emergency lights remained on throughout the encounter.

The above factors supporting a voluntary encounter are strong enough to outweigh the factors supporting an illegal seizure. We affirm the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Defendant’s presence in an area known for a significant number of robberies was not reasonable suspicion for his stop in the early morning hours when he was parked on a parking lot. Cockrell v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 700, 369 S.W.3d 19 (2009),* reversed 2010 Ark. 258, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 306 (2010).

Defendant’s traffic stop for not using his signal was proper. Butler v. State, 300 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.