State v. Coleman
257 P.3d 320
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Coleman was stopped for speeding on a Reno County highway; stop lasted about 5 minutes before more officers arrived.
- Car rental agreement had expired two days earlier; Coleman claimed a telephone renewal, which officers found odd.
- Parole status and information from the drug unit and a parole officer raised suspicion of Coleman’s travel and activities.
- Parole officer concerns and DEA unit knowledge led to detaining Coleman for a search despite no warrant at the outset.
- A parole officer later arrived; Coleman was handcuffed and searched; cash, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia were found in the vehicle.
- District court denied suppression; trial proceeded on stipulated facts, leading to convictions for possession with intent to sell, possession without tax stamps, and paraphernalia related to packaging a controlled substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable suspicion justified the extended detention | Coleman contends no reasonable suspicion existed | State asserts parole and travel-activity indicators created suspicion | Yes, reasonable suspicion supported detention |
| Whether the detention duration was lawful | Detention was unduly prolonged without arrest warrant | Detention necessary to wait for parole officer and search | No, detention unlawfully extended without proper authority |
| Whether Deputy Tatro had authority to arrest Coleman as a parole violator | No valid arrest/detain order existed | Parole rules justified detention pending parole officers search | Arrest/Detention invalid; evidence must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (probation-searchs require reasonable suspicion; information may justify searches of probationers)
- United States v. Freeman, 479 F.3d 743 (2nd Cir. 2007) (parolee searches require reasonable individualized suspicion)
- State v. Bennett, 200 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2009) (Kansas parolee search framework with heightened privacy expectations)
- State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980 (2009) (expanded detention permissible only to pursue reasonable suspicion; limits on duration)
- Mitchell, 265 Kan. 238 (1998) (detention duration requires reasonable basis; dog sniff not gratuitous delay)
- State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727 (1998) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality of circumstances standard in reasonable suspicion)