State v. Garza, 286 P.3d 554

Garza challenges the Court of Appeals’ reversal of a district court’s suppression of drug evidence from a traffic stop.
The State appealed the suppression order and the Court of Appeals assumed jurisdiction to review the merits.
The stop was based on the officer’s belief that Garza’s vehicle crossed left of center on a two-way street with a double yellow line.
Two statutes were discussed: K.S.A. 8-1514(a) (drive on the right half of the roadway) and K.S.A. 8-1522 (drive within a single lane); the district court applied 8-1522.
The district court suppressed the drug evidence, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the case is remanded for factual findings under 8-1514(a) to determine if the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.
The majority reverses the appellate panel’s finding of substantial evidence and remands for new findings under the state’s alleged statute, 8-1514(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there appellate jurisdiction to review the suppression from the dismissal?	Garza argues no jurisdiction under proper interlocutory appeal.	State contends dismissal and suppression are one and the same; notice of appeal suffices.	Jurisdiction proper; appeal from dismissal valid.
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion under the applicable statute?	Garza argues 8-1522 governs; no danger shown by lane drift.	State argues 8-1514(a) applies; evidence shows left of center.	Remanded to determine under 8-1514(a) whether reasonable suspicion existed.
Which statute correctly governs the stop given the evidence?	Garza urges 8-1522; focuses on safety of lane change.	State asserts 8-1514(a) applies on two-way roads with a centerline.	District court should apply 8-1514(a) and remand for further findings.
Did the Court of Appeals err in reweighing facts to support the stop?	Garza contends appellate court improperly made factual findings.	State contends appellate review is limited to law, not reweighing.	Remand for factual findings under 8-1514(a); appellate fact-finding corrected.

State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214 (2004) (suppress/notice interplay treated as one appealable decision)
State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657 (2009) (de novo review of legal questions; negative finding standard rejected)
State v. Hopper, 260 Kan. 66 (1976) (driving left of center absolute liability offense; exceptions apply)
State v. Chavez-Zbarra, 42 Kan. App. 2d 1074 (2009) (applies 8-1514 vs 8-1522 based on road type and centerline)
State v. Greever, 286 Kan. 124 (2008) (Fourth Amendment/ Kansas search/seizure standard extended)
State v. King, 293 Kan. 1057 (2012) (statutory interpretation: plain language governs)
State v. Snodgrass, 267 Kan. 185 (1999) (appellate jurisdiction and statutory appeal mechanics)
State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 29 (2011) (general jurisdiction principles for appellate review)
State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344 (2007) (traffic stops; permissible pretextual stops)
State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (2010) (Kansas/Fourth Amendment alignment; constitutional standards)