State v. Howard, 110439

Background

On Sept. 15, 2011 Officer Loughman stopped Cameron Howard for a traffic violation after observing evasive driving and potential seatbelt misuse.
Dispatch reported outstanding warrants for both Howard and his passenger; Howard was arrested on the warrant.
During a scan of the vehicle, Loughman observed a clear plastic baggie with a ripped corner in the center console and noted the passenger’s seat had become reclined.
After removing the passenger and moving her seat, Loughman discovered an AK-47–type pistol concealed under a floormat.
Howard was charged under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6304(a)(2) (felon in possession within five years of an out-of-state felony conviction); he moved to suppress the firearm and argued his prior Missouri suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) was not a conviction.
The district court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review, affirmed the Court of Appeals on the SIS and suppression issues, and adopted the panel’s analysis for other issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Howard)	Held
Whether a completed Missouri suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) counts as a conviction under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6304	SIS qualifies as a conviction for purposes of Kansas felon-in-possession statute	A completed SIS under Missouri law is not a conviction and cannot support a Kansas felon-in-possession charge	Held: Completed Missouri SIS is a conviction for statute; Court of Appeals' analysis adopted
Whether the firearm should be suppressed because it was discovered in a warrantless vehicle search	Warrantless search was lawful based on probable cause plus exigent vehicle-mobility circumstance; observed torn baggie, reclined seat, and officer experience justified search	Search violated Fourth Amendment; torn baggie and reclined seat insufficient for probable cause; suppression required	Held: Denial of suppression affirmed; probable cause existed considering totality (bagie, reclined seat inference, officer experience) and vehicle mobility exigency
Whether evidence that Howard passed a federal background check for the firearm purchase was admissible to show a mistake-of-fact defense	Exclusion proper under trial court rulings (State sought exclusion)	Evidence of passing federal background check would show Howard lacked knowledge of felon status and support mistake-of-fact defense	Held: Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court agree exclusion was not erroneous (adopted panel analysis)
Whether inevitable discovery is an alternative basis for admitting the firearm	State argued in the alternative that the firearm would have been inevitably discovered	Howard disputed alternative justification	Held: Majority resolved case on probable-cause/exigent ground and did not reach inevitable discovery

Key Cases Cited

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; exclusionary rule)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (vehicle search scope and probable-cause principles)
State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50 (Kan. 2012) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances permits warrantless vehicle search)
State v. Ramirez, 278 Kan. 402 (Kan. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances; furtive behavior can fill gaps when packaging suggests drug activity)
State v. Jones, 300 Kan. 630 (Kan. 2014) (intact plastic baggie generally does not significantly add to reasonable suspicion; context matters)
State v. Jefferson, 297 Kan. 1151 (Kan. 2013) (probable cause to search evaluated by totality of circumstances)
State v. Richard, 300 Kan. 715 (Kan. 2014) (summarizing established exceptions to warrant requirement)
People v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 3d 807 (Cal. 1970) (caution against overreliance on furtive movements to establish probable cause)