City of Wichita v. Molitor
301 Kan. 251
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Officer Diaz stopped William Molitor after observing a turn without signaling and an alleged tire-on-curb during a Wichita saturation patrol; Diaz smelled a strong odor of alcohol.
- Molitor admitted drinking “two or three beers”; speech unimpaired, produced documents, and did not lose balance when exiting vehicle.
- Diaz administered HGN (6/6 clues), walk-and-turn (1/8 clues), and one-leg-stand (1/4 clues); the latter two are NHTSA SFSTs and did not reach failure thresholds.
- Diaz requested a preliminary breath test (PBT) which registered .090; an Intoxilyzer later recorded .091.
- Molitor moved to suppress PBT/breath results, arguing HGN evidence is inadmissible under Kansas precedent; district court denied suppression, the Court of Appeals affirmed (allowing HGN at suppression hearing or finding reasonable suspicion without it), and Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed: HGN results cannot be used to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion because the State has not satisfied Witte’s requirement that HGN meet Frye-type reliability before being used for any purpose; the court then held the remaining evidence did not establish reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Molitor) | Defendant's Argument (City/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HGN results may be considered to establish reasonable suspicion to request a PBT | HGN is scientific evidence and inadmissible for any purpose unless reliability shown per Witte/Frye; thus cannot be used at suppression hearing | Other jurisdictions allow HGN as part of probable cause/reasonable-suspicion analysis; suppression hearings may admit broader evidence | HGN may not be used to establish reasonable suspicion because the State has not met Witte/Frye reliability requirements; reversal on this ground |
| Whether HGN need satisfy Frye (or equivalent) before any use by courts | Frye foundation required before HGN used for any purpose | HGN can be considered for reasonable suspicion even if not admissible at trial | Court: Witte requires the State to prove HGN reliability before any judicial reliance; Frye-type showing not made here |
| Whether exclusion of HGN was harmless because other evidence supported reasonable suspicion | Molitor: without HGN, totality of the circumstances does not show reasonable suspicion to request PBT | State/Court of Appeals: other indicia (curb strike, odor, bloodshot eyes, admission, SFST clues) suffice | Court: exculpatory factors (passing SFSTs, unimpaired speech, limited admissions) outweighed inculpatory ones; reasonable suspicion not established without HGN |
| Procedural scope: may suppression hearings use different evidentiary rules than trial | Molitor: K.S.A. 60-402 makes trial rules applicable to suppression hearings; inadmissible at trial should be excluded pretrial | State: suppression hearing can consider evidence relevant to reasonable suspicion even if not trial-admissible | Court avoided broad procedural holding and resolved on substantive reliability; held HGN may not be relied upon at suppression hearings absent Witte showing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313 (Kan. 1992) (HGN is scientific evidence; reliability must be established before admissibility)
- State v. Chastain, 265 Kan. 16 (Kan. 1998) (discusses limitations on HGN evidence)
- State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 (Kan. 2010) (addresses HGN and expert opinion admissibility framework)
- State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513 (Kan. 2013) (field sobriety test performance must be included in totality-of-circumstances for PBT reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412 (Kan. 1999) (defines reasonable suspicion/probable cause totality-of-circumstances approach)
- State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881 (Kan. 2008) (examples of low-threshold indicia supporting reasonable suspicion)
- Jones v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 44 Kan. App. 2d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010) (Court of Appeals must follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (articulated general acceptance test for scientific evidence admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (alternative federal standard for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)