City of Atwood v. Pianalto
301 Kan. 1008
| Kan. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 1, 2012, an Atwood police officer radar-checked Richard Pianalto at 28 mph on North Lake Road and stopped him believing the posted limit was 20 mph; the officer did not know a 20-mph sign at that location had been knocked down.
- During the stop the officer developed suspicion of intoxication, conducted sobriety testing, and a breath test showed a BAC of .148; Pianalto was charged with DUI and speeding.
- Pianalto moved to suppress, arguing the downed sign meant the statutory default 30-mph limit applied and 28 mph could not support reasonable suspicion for a speeding stop.
- The district court denied suppression, characterizing the officer’s error as a reasonable mistake of fact (he did not know the sign was down).
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed (assuming reversion to 30 mph but treating the officer’s belief as a factual mistake). The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and ordered supplemental briefing after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heien v. North Carolina.
- The Kansas Supreme Court concluded the officer’s mistaken belief was one of fact and, under an objective-reasonableness standard (and in light of Heien), the mistake was objectively reasonable; convictions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Pianalto's Argument | City/Officer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawful because the speed limit had reverted to 30 mph when the sign was down | The downed sign meant the statutory default 30-mph limit applied, so 28 mph did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop | Officer reasonably (and innocently) believed a 20-mph sign remained posted and observed 28 mph, giving articulable suspicion | Stop lawful: officer’s mistake was one of fact and objectively reasonable; convictions affirmed |
| Whether the officer’s error was a mistake of law (invalidating the stop) or fact (potentially valid) | Officer’s failure to know legal effect of downed sign is a mistake of law, which would invalidate the stop | Officer was unaware the sign was down — a factual error about signage/existing condition | Court characterized the error as a mistake of fact (close question) |
| Whether Heien v. North Carolina affects whether reasonable mistakes of law can justify stops | (Argued) Pre-Heien rule barred reliance on mistakes of law; stop invalid if legal mistake | Heien permits reasonable mistakes of law to supply reasonable suspicion; here the error was factual regardless | Court acknowledged Heien but resolved case on fact-mistake ground and applied objective-reasonableness standard |
| Whether another officer’s prior knowledge of the downed sign should be imputed to the arresting officer | The earlier-reporting officer knew the sign was down, so that knowledge should be imputed and render the stop invalid | No evidence the arresting officer knew or was directed by the other officer; issue not raised below | Not preserved; in any event, knowledge not imputed because arresting officer acted independently |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable mistakes of law can supply reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment)
- Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625 (Kan. 2010) (previous Kansas rule treating officer mistakes of law as invalidating stops)
- State v. Martinez, 296 Kan. 482 (Kan. 2013) (reasonable-suspicion standard and totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (Kan. 2007) (traffic stop is a seizure requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (objective-reasonableness standard for evaluating mistakes of fact)