State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763

On April 19, 2009 Reno County deputy stopped Erik Pettay for driving with a suspended license; Pettay was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car.
While Pettay was secured, an officer conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle and found a glass pipe containing marijuana residue.
Two days later the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which rendered such searches unlawful unless the arrestee was within reach of the vehicle or the vehicle contained evidence of the crime of arrest.
State conceded the search was illegal under Gant/Henning but invoked a Kansas good-faith exception recognizing officers’ objectively reasonable reliance on K.S.A. 22-2501(c).
Pettay argued the search exceeded the statute’s physical scope (“area within such person’s immediate presence”) because he was secured away from the vehicle, so the good-faith exception shouldn’t apply.
The district court suppressed; a Court of Appeals reversed based on State v. Daniel; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the search exceeded K.S.A. 22-2501’s scope and suppression was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pettay)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether good-faith exception applies when officer did not testify reliance on K.S.A. 22-2501(c)	Good-faith inapplicable because deputy didn’t say he relied on the statute	Objective reasonableness matters; subjective citation unnecessary	Rejected Pettay’s claim — objective reasonableness, not subjective reliance, controls
Whether vehicle search was within the statute’s physical scope (“immediate presence”)	Search exceeded K.S.A. 22-2501’s scope because Pettay was handcuffed and secured in patrol car	Search was lawful under prevailing caselaw (e.g., Belton) and factually like Daniel	Held search exceeded the statute’s plain-language scope; officer lacked statutory authority
Whether federal caselaw (Belton line) could enlarge K.S.A. 22-2501’s scope	Statute’s plain language governs; Conn and Anderson limit federal caselaw’s effect	State argued many officers reasonably relied on federal precedents	Held federal caselaw cannot be used to expand the statute’s plain scope for objective-reasonableness analysis
Whether exclusionary rule should apply despite contradictory appellate caselaw	Suppression required to ensure compliance with statutory limits	Prior conflicting Court of Appeals decisions reduce deterrent value of suppression	Held suppression appropriate — exclusion serves deterrence and statutory compliance

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (prohibits vehicle searches incident to arrest unless arrestee within reaching distance or vehicle likely contains evidence of the crime of arrest)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (recognized scope of search-incident-to-arrest for vehicle occupants prior to Gant)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (exclusionary rule as judicially created remedy with limits)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception for reliance on warrant)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (suppression unwarranted when it fails to yield appreciable deterrence)
State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (Kansas recognized good-faith exception for objectively reasonable reliance on K.S.A. 22-2501(c))
State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387 (K.S.A. 22-2501 may be more restrictive than federal Fourth Amendment caselaw)
State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16 (statute’s plain language governs scope of searches incident to arrest)
State v. Henning, 289 Kan. 136 (followed Gant under Kansas law)
State v. Karson, 297 Kan. 634 (post-Daniel case addressing good-faith issues)