State v. Hanke, 415 P.3d 966

Around 2:00 a.m. Sgt. Jason Thompson observed a van parked with its engine running in a well-lit convenience store stall; a bystander reported the driver was slumped in the seat and the vehicle had been there ~1 hour.
Thompson approached on foot (no emergency lights) and knocked; the driver (David Hanke) quickly sat up, opened the door, and appeared disoriented, had trouble fixating and responded slowly.
Thompson detected no alcohol odor and Hanke said he was “fine,” but based on posture, location, running engine, and the driver’s behavior Thompson suspected drug impairment.
Thompson asked Hanke to step out and then requested consent to search the driver’s compartment; Hanke consented.
Under the seat Thompson found a pipe with whitish residue and baggies containing suspected methamphetamine and marijuana. Hanke was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress; the district court denied suppression, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the encounter became an investigatory detention lacking reasonable suspicion	Hanke: initial welfare/public-safety check metamorphosed into an illegal detention that coerced consent; consent therefore involuntary	State: encounter was voluntary (or, alternatively, the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion)	Court assumed arguendo a detention but held reasonable suspicion existed, so detention was lawful and consent not tainted
Whether consent to search was voluntary	Hanke: consent was coerced by an unlawful seizure and ignorance of right to refuse	State: consent was voluntary during a lawful encounter/detention	Court found consent voluntary because detention (if any) was supported by reasonable suspicion
Whether suppression burden satisfied	Hanke: State failed to prove lawfulness of search/seizure	State: bears burden and met it by showing reasonable suspicion and exigent public-safety facts	Court: State met its burden; search lawful as consent given during a justified detention
Standard of review for suppression ruling	Hanke: factual findings support suppression	State: appellate review is de novo on legal conclusions	Court reiterated facts reviewed for substantial competent evidence; ultimate legality reviewed de novo and affirmed district court

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion standard)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch; minimal objective justification)
State v. Thomas, 291 Kan. 676 (2011) (adopts totality-of-the-circumstances test for detention versus voluntary encounter)
State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234 (2014) (standard of review for suppression: facts substantial competent evidence; legal conclusions de novo)
State v. James, 301 Kan. 898 (2015) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement)