State v. Keenan
377 P.3d 439
| Kan. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 23, 2010, Julie Hynes called police after seeing Gregory Keenan arrive drunk with his 4-year-old son; she reported he drove home intoxicated and had the child in the car.
- Lenexa officers Madl and Hinkle located Keenan at his residence; before he went inside they smelled alcohol and observed stumbling. Keenan asked to take his son inside; officers followed after he refused permission.
- Inside, officers observed additional signs of intoxication (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, stumbling), Keenan refused sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and refused a breath test; bottles of alcohol later found in his vehicle.
- Keenan moved to suppress evidence obtained after the warrantless entry; the district court denied the motion (citing exigent circumstances/reasonable suspicion), and the Court of Appeals affirmed (finding probable cause and exigency/hot pursuit).
- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but rested its decision on harmless-error grounds: even if the warrantless entry were unlawful, the officers already had probable cause to arrest Keenan before entry, and any additional evidence was cumulative and would not have affected the trial outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless entry into home | State: exigent circumstances (loss/dissipation of alcohol evidence) and hot pursuit justified entry | Keenan: entry required a warrant absent particularized exigency; officers had only reasonable suspicion pre-entry | Court did not decide exigency; assumed arguendo possible error but held any error harmless because probable cause existed pre-entry and post-entry evidence was cumulative | |
| Probable cause to arrest before entry | State: officers corroborated Hynes’ tip and observed impairment signs, supporting probable cause for DUI | Keenan: officers lacked probable cause until they were inside the home | Held: probable cause existed before entry based on reliable informant tip corroborated by officers’ observations | |
| Admission of evidence obtained after entry (Miranda and physical evidence) | State: evidence admissible; officers’ investigatory questions not Miranda-compelled and search incident to arrest lawful | Keenan: statements and vehicle/inside observations flowed from unlawful entry and should be suppressed | Court remanded only to limited redaction issue (some Miranda statements excluded) but ultimately admitted evidence; overall admission harmless error as to outcome | |
| Preservation of suppression claim on appeal | State argued Keenan failed to preserve the issue by late objection | Keenan relied on Court of Appeals’ finding of preservation | Kansas Supreme Court declined to consider State’s preservation challenge because State did not cross-petition the Court of Appeals’ ruling | Held: preservation issue not reviewed further by the Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant requirement and limits on warrantless entries)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (home arrests for minor offenses generally require warrant)
- Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (short flight from doorway into residence can be hot pursuit)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (informant tips may supply probable cause when corroborated)
- State v. Thomas, 302 Kan. 440 (harmlessness analysis when unlawfully obtained evidence is cumulative)
- State v. Dugan, 47 Kan. App. 2d 582 (probable cause plus particularized exigent circumstances required for warrantless residential entry)
- State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453 (home is afforded special Fourth Amendment protection)
- United States v. Long, 774 F.3d 653 (probable cause can rest on corroborated informant information)