State v. Julian, 300 Kan. 690

Warrantless vehicle search occurred during arrest; statute in effect did not authorize discovering evidence.
Kansas law at time (K.S.A. 22-2501; repealed 2011) governed searches incident to arrest and limited purposes to officer safety or preventing escape.
Search of Julian’s car was conducted after arrest and before repeal; not authorized by statute for evidence discovery.
Supreme Court held district court erred by applying Fourth Amendment case law instead of Kansas statute.
Court concluded the search was illegal under the then-applicable statute and affirmed district court’s suppression.
Lower courts had relied on Gant to justify the search, but Gant post-dates the statute and was not controlling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 22-2501 governed the search at issue.	Julian argued statute controlled; search for evidence improper.	State argued Gant/constitutional grounds allowed search.	Yes; statute controlled and did not authorize evidence discovery.
Whether the 2006 amendment to 22-2501(c) and Gant affected the case.	Amendment rendered search unconstitutional under statute; Gant not controlling.	Gant could revive pre-amendment understanding.	Statute controlled; amendment and later cases did not permit the search.
Whether the suppression should be reversed or affirmed.	Evidence should be suppressed under statutory limits.	suppression improper under Fourth Amendment as interpreted later.	Suppression affirmed; search illegal.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits warrantless arrestee searches to area within immediate control)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (established exclusionary rule for warrantless searches)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (allow vehicle search incident to arrest of occupant in passenger compartment)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; arrestee reaching distance; evidence-containing vehicle)
State v. Henning, 289 Kan. 136 (2009) (Kaplan-like analysis; statute deemed facially unconstitutional post-Gant)
State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16 (1996) (Anderson held permissible purposes limited to statute; Chimel-based analysis)
State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387 (2004) (statutory framework controls searches incident to arrest in Kansas)
State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642 (2013) (statutory scope governs searches; confirms 22-2501 control)
State v. Dennis, 297 Kan. 229 (2013) (confirms statutory scope in search incidents to arrest)
State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (2010) (statutory limits on searches for evidence)
State v. Karson, 297 Kan. 634 (2013) (statutory framework for searches incident to arrest)