State v. Chapman, 111572

Background

In December 2012 an anonymous 911 caller reported two people walking around a Wichita model home during a heavy snow; caller said a black/dark Acura Integra was in front of the home but could not confirm entry.
Dispatch relayed a "suspicious character" call (address, two people, vehicle description) to officers Brent Johnson and Travis Cleveland.
Johnson saw a dark Acura Integra leaving the area; he stopped the vehicle (no traffic violation observed). Chapman was the driver; two occupants were in the car.
During the stop officers ordered occupants to show hands; later one officer briefly reported seeing a gun (turned out to be a BB gun). A search produced stolen IDs and paperwork and the Acura was found to be stolen.
Chapman was charged with identity theft and felony theft and moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the district court denied the motion and Chapman was convicted.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review of Chapman's challenge to the denial of suppression and reversed, holding the anonymous tip of suspicious but noncriminal activity did not supply reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Chapman's vehicle	The stop was justified because officers responded to a report of suspicious activity (character/burglary) and Chapman’s car matched the dispatched description and left the area	The anonymous tip reported only suspicious (noncriminal) activity; officers lacked specific, articulable facts to suspect criminal activity and therefore the stop was unlawful	No reasonable suspicion: anonymous tip of noncriminal suspicious activity, corroborated only by general vehicle presence, insufficient to justify stop

Key Cases Cited

State v. Walker, 292 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2011) (upheld stop where identified victim gave in-person report of an actual burglary and defendant matched suspect description)
City of Garden City v. Mesa, 215 Kan. 674 (Kan. 1974) (upheld officer-initiated stop based on officers' direct observations of unusual presence at business during early morning hours)
State v. McKeown, 249 Kan. 506 (Kan. 1991) (anonymous tip of noncriminal suspicious activity insufficient to support stop)
State v. Slater, 267 Kan. 694 (Kan. 1999) (anonymous tips are among the least reliable; anonymous tips alone seldom justify stops absent corroboration)
State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704 (Kan. 2015) (appellate review on suppression uses bifurcated standard: factual findings for substantial competent evidence, legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Jones, 300 Kan. 630 (Kan. 2014) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and at least a minimal level of objective justification under totality of circumstances)
State v. Coleman, 292 Kan. 813 (Kan. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion analysis examines totality of circumstances; courts must avoid categorizing each factor as purely innocent or suspicious)
State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657 (Kan. 2009) (legal standards governing review of suppression rulings)
State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326 (Kan. 2012) (appellate courts must not make factfindings contrary to the district court)
State v. Crawford, 275 Kan. 492 (Kan. 2003) (anonymous tip reporting reckless or criminal driving may justify stop when corroborated)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (anonymous tip that includes predictive/incidental details corroborated by police may supply reasonable suspicion)