KS: Officer did not have to rely on def’s representation AW was being withdrawn; dispatch confirmed it was still valid before arrest

There was an arrest warrant for defendant, but it was vacated by the issuing court eight hours after defendant’s arrest. Defense counsel was trying to get it vacated at the time. “Here, Rollf testified that under department policy, after dispatch told him Posa had a warrant outstanding, he asked dispatch to confirm Posa’s warrant with the issuing agency—dispatch did so and confirmed Posa’s warrant was outstanding before officers arrested Posa. The officers’ choice to rely on information they had confirmed from their dispatch, rather than information Posa gave them, was based on their training, their experience, and their understanding that it was the most accurate and up to date information available. Doing so was reasonable, not deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent. Our finding that they acted in good faith is underscored by Davidson’s acts after arresting Posa.” Defendant argues that the Kansas Constitution doesn’t recognize the good faith exception. “But neither does the Kansas Constitution recognize the exclusionary rule, and we suspect Posa would not want us to jettison it.” Kansas recognizes both by case law. State v. Posa, 2021 Kan. App. LEXIS 53 (Nov. 5, 2021).

Defendant argues there was no reasonable suspicion for a parole search. It isn’t required. And there was anyway. State v. Bozarth, 2021 UT App 117, 2021 Utah App. LEXIS 119 (Nov. 4, 2021).*