State v. Krebbs
122166
| Kan. Ct. App. | Nov 5, 2021Background
- Reno County DEU obtained a November 27, 2017 GPS tracking-warrant affidavit alleging Christopher Krebbs distributed methamphetamine; DEU installed tracker December 17, 2017 and monitored his vehicle.
- DEU followed two trips from Hutchinson to Wichita (Dec. 21, 2017 and Jan. 10, 2018); on Jan. 10 deputies stopped Krebbs for speeding after GPS indicated he reentered Reno County.
- After arrest, deputies searched the vehicle and recovered ~1 pound methamphetamine, a handgun, THC cigarettes, and paraphernalia; Krebbs made incriminating statements after Miranda.
- Krebbs moved to suppress the items and statements, arguing lack of probable cause for arrest and that any probable cause was stale before the search; trial court denied suppression by email/oral ruling (not in record).
- Jury convicted Krebbs (distribution of meth, possession of THC, criminal possession of a firearm); at sentencing court used his criminal-history score (G) to set a 154-month controlling term.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it declined to reach many merits arguments because of multiple preservation/record defects (missing e-mail order, issues not raised below), and rejected the sentencing challenge under existing Kansas precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrantless arrest | Krebbs: Deputy Soule lacked probable cause to order arrest; informants and surveillance were unreliable or stale. | State: DEU had multi-source investigation and judicial finding (GPS warrant) supporting belief Krebbs was distributing meth. | Not considered on appeal — Krebbs raised arrest-probable-cause argument for first time on appeal and waived it under Rule 6.02(a)(5). |
| Probable cause to search vehicle / automobile exception (staleness) | Krebbs: Any probable cause derived from Dec. 21 activity was stale by Jan. 10; thus warrantless search unlawful. | State: DEU observed corroborating contemporaneous conduct on Jan. 10 and vehicle mobility supplies exigency under the automobile exception. | Not considered on appeal — Krebbs failed to preserve staleness argument; and automobile exception supplies exigency under Sanchez-Loredo. |
| Trial court fact-findings / inadequate ruling on suppression | Krebbs: Trial court’s denial lacked written findings (email order missing) and factual support; prejudicial. | State: Rely on trial court's oral summary; appellant bears duty to include record and object below. | Court presumed ruling correct under Vonachen because appellant omitted the e-mail order and failed to object to inadequate findings; preservation/default record rules fatal to review. |
| Sentencing: use of judicially found criminal history under Kansas Constitution §5 | Krebbs: Section 5 preserves common-law jury rights so any fact (prior convictions) used to increase sentence must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. | State: KSGA permits judge to determine criminal history by preponderance; Sixth Amendment and state precedent allow judicial findings for prior convictions at sentencing. | Rejected. Court declined to consider new argument (preservation), and relied on Albano (affirmed by KS Supreme Court) holding use of judicial findings of priors for KSGA sentencing does not violate §5. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 281 Kan. 136 (defines probable cause for arrest)
- State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50 (automobile exception: mobility provides exigency; vehicle-search probable cause standard)
- State v. Vonachen, 312 Kan. 451 (appellant must include trial court email/order in record; absence leads to presumption ruling was proper)
- State v. Albano, 313 Kan. 638 (affirming appellate panel: judicial findings of prior convictions for KSGA sentencing do not violate Kansas Const. §5)
- State v. Hanke, 307 Kan. 823 (bifurcated review of suppression rulings: appellate court defers to trial court fact findings and reviews legal conclusions de novo)