State v. Bierer
308 P.3d 10
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- A suspicious package mailed from Reno, Nevada, addressed to Shaun Boehm, is flagged by a postal inspector for narcotics indicators.
- A passive-alert K-9 indicates the package; deputies prepare a residence warrant and plan a controlled delivery.
- The package is left at the residence; Bierer later takes it from the porch, places it in his vehicle, and drives away.
- Law enforcement stops Bierer, arrests him, and opens the package in a warrantless search, uncovering marijuana.
- Bierer is charged with distribution of marijuana and drug tax stamp violation; Bierer moves to suppress.
- The district court grants the suppression; the State appeals interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bierer have standing to challenge the search? | Bierer lacked standing because not named on package. | Bierer had possessory/ownership interest in package and vehicle. | Bierer had standing to challenge the search. |
| Was a warrant needed to search the package within the automobile? | Acevedo does not control Kansas; container search requires warrant. | Acevedo controls; probable cause allowed warrantless search of container in car. | Probable cause allowed warrantless search of package under Acevedo. |
| Does Acevedo control the disposition of this case over Jaso/Love precedents? | Kansas has not adopted Acevedo; follow Jaso/Love requiring a container warrant. | Supreme Court decisions interpreting Fourth Amendment apply; Acevedo governs. | Acevedo governs; permits warrantless search of package in auto with probable cause. |
| If probable cause supported the search, does the good-faith exception apply? | Good-faith exception could apply to suppressions if warrant relied upon. | Not needed to reach on probable cause; we can affirm on that basis. | Not reached/needed; suppression reversed due to probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1991) (car-search rule: probable cause justifies search of containers within a vehicle)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (searches of containers in a vehicle may be broader under probable cause)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977) (container-specific search rule prior to Acevedo; Chadwick distinguished)
- State v. Daly, 14 Kan. App. 2d 310 (1990) (sealed packages fall within privacy expectations; standing considerations)
- State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720 (2005) (privacy expectations and standing in privacy interests)
- State v. Jaso, 231 Kan. 614 (1982) (container search requirement; distinction between whole-vehicle searches and containers)
- Love v. One 1967 Chevrolet, 247 Kan. 469 (1990) (favorably cited regarding container searches)
- State v. MacDonald, 253 Kan. 320 (1993) (Acevedo cited in support of automobile searches)