State v. Mullen
304 Kan. 347
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Postal inspector at Kansas City P&DC flagged a 5 lb. 12.6 oz package from Oakland addressed to 5807 Meadowsweet Lane, Shawnee; K-9 alerted to narcotics odor.
- Detective Hahne swore an affidavit requesting an anticipatory search warrant conditioned on a "successful controlled delivery to a resident" of the Meadowsweet Lane house.
- Warrant issued; postal inspector, in a postal vehicle and under police surveillance, set the package on the front porch after knocking and announcing "Post Office." No one answered.
- Mullen, staying at the house, retrieved the package from the porch and took it inside while under surveillance; officers then executed the anticipatory warrant and found ~896 g of marijuana.
- Mullen moved to suppress the drugs and his statements, arguing the triggering condition (a controlled delivery) required a hand-to-hand transfer; district court and Court of Appeals upheld the warrant/execution but Court of Appeals found a separate jury-waiver defect. Kansas Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mullen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for anticipatory warrant | Warrant insufficient because affidavit lacked evidence occupants expected the package; mere receipt at the address doesn’t link house to drug activity | Affidavit (suspicious origin, weight, K-9 alert, source state) and condition (controlled delivery) supplied a fair probability contraband would be in the house | Probable cause satisfied; affidavit provided substantial basis for magistrate’s finding |
| Nexus requirement for anticipatory warrant | Need evidence occupants intended to receive contraband; otherwise resident could be unknowingly "set up" | When government-controlled delivery to the designated place is alleged, nexus is satisfied without independent evidence linking occupants to trafficking | Rejected Mullen’s nexus argument; controlled-delivery allegation can satisfy nexus |
| Whether a "controlled delivery" required hand-to-hand transfer | A controlled delivery must be hand-to-hand (Inspector must physically hand parcel to resident) | Controlled delivery need only be performed under law enforcement control/supervision and make it fair probable contraband will be in the premises | Controlled delivery occurred when inspector left parcel under police surveillance and resident retrieved it; hand-to-hand not required |
| Valid execution of anticipatory warrant | Execution invalid because triggering condition (controlled delivery) didn’t occur as defined by defendant | Package was delivered under police control and taken inside by resident while under surveillance, triggering the warrant | Execution valid; police properly entered under the triggered anticipatory warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (establishes two-prong probable cause test for anticipatory warrants)
- Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (explains practical limits of "perfect" controlled deliveries and law enforcement supervision principle)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (exclusionary rule and good-faith principles)
- State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 (Kansas standard for reviewing magistrate probable-cause determinations)
- United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194 (controlled delivery to designated place satisfies nexus for anticipatory warrant)
- United States v. Hugoboom, 112 F.3d 1081 (anticipatory warrant supported by parcel mailed to residence; no independent evidence linking residence to drug activity required)
- State v. Bierer, 49 Kan. App. 2d 403 (Kansas case recognizing non-hand-to-hand porch/mailbox retrieval as controlled delivery)