State v. Bruce
287 P.3d 919
Kan.2012Background
- Wade through the chain of authority: 2009 delegation from AG Six to AAG Disney to apply for wiretap orders under K.S.A. 22-2515 et seq.; Disney sought and obtained a state wiretap order for drug investigation; Bruce challenged suppression of wiretap evidence as unlawfully obtained; district court held delegation violated central provisions and suppressed; this interlocutory appeal followed; Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a federal wiretap violation? | Bruce: delegation invalid under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). | State: 75-710 delegation broad enough to authorize Disney. | Yes, ruling that Disney lacked authority to apply for the order. |
| Did the violation involve a central provision of the wiretap scheme? | Bruce: central provisions violated by delegation. | State: no central-provision issue if safeguards exist. | Yes, central provision violated. |
| Should the wiretap evidence be suppressed or deemed harmless given the delegation? | Bruce: suppression required by statute. | State: potential harmlessness due to safeguards. | Suppression required; no harmlessness analysis favored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olander v. State, 213 Kan. 282 (Kan. 1973) (statutory delegation limits for wiretap applications; assistant county attorney excluded)
- Farha v. State, 218 Kan. 394 (Kan. 1975) (delegation to assistant AG invalid; centrality of authorization)
- Giordano v. United States, 416 U.S. 505 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (central authorization provisions must be strictly complied with)
- Dowdy v. State, 222 Kan. 118 (Kan. 1977) (tethered to wiretap suppression remedies; pre-Leon context)
- United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (context on wiretap authorization and centralization)
- State v. Willis, 7 Kan. App. 2d 413 (Kan. App. 1982) (late posting of inventory not requiring suppression)