State v. Leija, 123080

Leija had a 2014 domestic-battery misdemeanor conviction; a 2018 statutory amendment (HB 2145) made it unlawful for a person with such a conviction to possess firearms for five years.
On March 3, 2019, witnesses (his ex-wife and her husband) saw Leija outside his house wave a pistol and gesture at the husband; the child left with the ex-wife.
Police obtained a warrant to search 250 S. Garfield Ave. (house, curtilage, outbuildings) and a identified 1999 maroon Dodge pickup for “all firearms.”
Execution of the warrant (March 15) yielded a .22 revolver and a BB gun in the truck, and a .45 pistol, rifle, and shotgun in the house.
Leija was charged with multiple counts of criminal use of a weapon; counts were consolidated to one, he was convicted after a stipulated-facts bench trial, and he appealed arguing (1) lack of probable cause for the house search and (2) the firearm-possession statute violates the Kansas constitutional right to bear arms.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the magistrate had a substantial basis for issuing the warrant and the search was properly executed; the constitutional challenge was unpreserved and the court declined to review it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause supported the warrant and the search of Leija's house (scope of search)	Warrant lacked specific facts that a gun would be inside the house; officers only had reports of a gun in his truck, so searching the whole house was unsupported	Totality of circumstances: witnesses saw Leija with a gun outside the house; magistrate reasonably could conclude firearms might be in the house or truck; warrant expressly covered both house and identified truck	Warrant valid when issued; magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause; police properly executed the warrant and need not stop searching after finding some evidence in the truck
Whether K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6301(a)(18) (prohibiting firearm possession after domestic-battery misdemeanor) violates Kansas Constitution §4	Leija contended the statute infringes right to bear arms under the Kansas Constitution	State argued statute is constitutional and also that the issue was not preserved for appeal	Court refused to reach the constitutional claim because Leija did not raise it below and the appellate court declined to exercise discretionary exceptions to consider it

State v. Mullen, 304 Kan. 347 (2016) (discusses anticipatory-warrant doctrine and affidavit review under totality of circumstances)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (validity of a warrant assessed at issuance; subsequent discoveries do not retroactively invalidate it)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (definition and limits of anticipatory warrants)
State v. Patterson, 304 Kan. 272 (2016) (warrant ambiguity and whether premises description includes a vehicle parked on property)
State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422 (2013) (review of affidavits for probable cause under totality of circumstances)
State v. Beltran, 48 Kan. App. 2d 857 (2013) (probable cause for search warrants requires specific facts linking evidence to the place to be searched)
State v. Craddick, 49 Kan. App. 2d 580 (2013) (distinguishing BB/compressed-air guns from firearms)
State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 (2020) (discusses discretion to consider unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. Ton, 308 Kan. 564 (2018) (State bears burden to prove a search and seizure were lawful)