In State v. White, the Kansas Court of Appeals put in check a police officer’s power to detain and search individuals. State v. White, No. 103, 472, slip op. at 16 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). There, the court found the police had improperly detained Mr. Billy White after a traffic stop and did not secure voluntary consent before searching his vehicle. Moreover, one officer performed a pat-down search of Mr. White even though he had no reasonable concern for officer safety. Mr. White argued his Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure were violated and any evidence that was found should be suppressed.
“Here, Mr. White was pulled over for a traffic infraction. The police officer wished to search his vehicle but did not have any suspicion of illegal activity beyond the traffic infraction. In addition, the officer did not finish the traffic stop and then afterwards seek a voluntary encounter with Mr. White. Instead, during the traffic detention, the officer asked Mr. White to search his vehicle. As a result, even though Mr. White agreed to the search, the court found request was improper and the search was illegal.”
“Mr. White’s rights were violated again when a different officer patted him even though he had no reasonable fear for his safety. The Supreme Court has made clear “[t]o justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.” Id. at 13 (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. ___, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694, 700, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)). Here, the officer admitted Mr. White was cooperative and there was no facts that would give the officer a reasonable fear for his safety.”
As a result of the improper officer activity, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. White’s felony convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp. Any drug evidence found during the improper searches was suppressed and his case was remanded to the district court. In the complex area of search and seizure law, it is critical to have an attorney who understands the issues and will seek to protect your Fourth Amendment rights. Often times, knowledge of the Fourth Amendment means the difference between prison and freedom. At Bell Folsom, our attorneys have years of experience and expertise in litigating these issues. To speak with a skilled attorney today, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.