State v. Carr, 116228

Background

July 2015: a drive-by shooting wounded Royelle Miller; the next day Antwon Love was killed near the same area. Police pursued a Dodge Durango after it ran stop signs; a gun was later recovered near where officers lost sight of the Durango.
Officers later stopped a black Ford Explorer they associated with defendant Ralfeal Carr; Georgia Kelley (Carr's aunt) was driving and Carr rode front passenger. Officers arrested Carr and found a Durango key, a cell phone, over $5,000 cash, and—after transport—a small amount of loose marijuana in his pocket.
Police used Carr’s phone to get the phone number (without a warrant), obtained a preservation letter to Verizon, then secured a warrant for records; cell-tower data led to the Durango being located in William Lewis’s garage. The Durango key matched the vehicle found.
Carr was charged with aggravated battery, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, eluding, possession of marijuana, speeding, and stop-sign violations. After a jury trial he was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of marijuana; acquitted of several other offenses.
At the suppression hearing the district court ruled the Explorer stop was lawful but held the warrantless phone search violated Riley; nonetheless it admitted cell records under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. Carr appealed, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and evidence from it should be suppressed.
The Court of Appeals held the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Explorer (their only basis was an association between Carr and the vehicle) and suppressed evidence obtained by the stop (key, cash, marijuana). The court upheld admission of Verizon cell-tower records under inevitable discovery but concluded the improperly admitted evidence was not harmless and reversed convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Carr's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was the stop of the Ford Explorer a lawful Terry stop?	Stop unlawful—officers had only an association between Carr and the vehicle, no specific facts placing him in the car at the time.	Stop lawful—officer associated Explorer with Carr based on prior sightings and family ownership, and was seeking a suspect in the shooting.	Stop unlawful: association alone did not provide reasonable suspicion Carr was in the car that day.
Should evidence found as a result of the stop (key, cash, marijuana, phone) be suppressed?	All evidence from the unlawful stop must be excluded under the exclusionary rule.	Some items (phone records) admissible; others harmless even if improperly admitted.	Key, cash, marijuana inadmissible (suppressed). Phone search without warrant violated Riley; but cell records admissible under inevitable-discovery.
Were the Verizon cell-tower records admissible?	Records obtained via warrant should be suppressed as fruits of unlawful search of the phone.	Records admissible because police would have lawfully discovered the phone number (e.g., via rap video and law-enforcement database) and then obtained a warrant—inevitable discovery.	Admitted: district court did not err; the record supports that police likely would have found the number lawfully and obtained a warrant.
Was any error harmless given the remaining evidence?	Error was prejudicial—key (found on Carr) was a critical link tying him to the Durango and the shooting; cannot say verdict would be the same without it.	Evidence against Carr was overwhelming (cell records, witness statements, Georgia’s initial statement) so any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Not harmless: unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that admission of key/cash/marijuana did not contribute to conviction; reversed and remanded for new trial.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative stops)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (vehicle stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Hudson, 405 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2005) (mere past association with a vehicle insufficient to justify stop)
United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (association plus contemporaneous corroborating facts can support stop)
State v. Steen, 28 Kan. App. 2d 214 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) (association may suffice if tied to prior driver/passenger activity; requires proof of nature of association)
State v. Baker, 306 Kan. 585 (2017) (explains preponderance standard for inevitable-discovery exception)
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. _ (2016) (addresses exclusionary-rule doctrines and exceptions)