State v. Powell
299 Kan. 690
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Police recovered hair, blood, and tissue from a stolen Greenwood County patrol car; officers sought a warrant in Sept. 2007 to seize Powell’s blood, hair, buccal swabs, and fingerprints.
- The supporting affidavit did not state that biological material from the car existed for comparison, relied on three anonymous tips implicating Powell, and recounted a Detective’s interview in which Powell gave somewhat inconsistent statements.
- A district judge signed the warrant, Powell’s samples were taken, and he was charged; at a suppression hearing the same judge found the warrant lacked probable cause but admitted the evidence under the Leon good-faith exception.
- Powell stipulated his DNA would match the car samples, was convicted at a bench trial, and appealed; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of the evidence.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, held the warrant lacked the required nexus and relied on uncorroborated anonymous tips, and reversed because reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable under Leon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Powell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant established probable cause to seize Powell’s biological material | Warrant failed to show nexus between items sought and the car theft or that car biological material existed for comparison; anonymous tips were uncorroborated | Affidavit implied a comparison sample existed (Powell had agreed to voluntary testing) and detective’s interview supported suspicion | Warrant lacked probable cause: no adequate nexus and anonymous tips lacked indicia of reliability |
| Whether the Leon good-faith exception allows admission despite invalid warrant | Leon does not apply because affidavit had so little indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on it | Officers reasonably relied on a judicially approved warrant; Leon should apply | Leon exception inapplicable: error was objectively unreasonable given glaring omissions and uncorroborated tips |
| Whether anonymous tips in affidavit supported probable cause | Anonymous tips were conclusory and lacked basis of knowledge or corroboration | Tips plus investigator’s observations and Powell’s interview provided sufficient context | Anonymous tips alone lacked weight; totality did not supply probable cause or justify good-faith reliance |
| Whether K.S.A. 22-2502 authorizes warrants to seize biological material | Powell contended statute does not expressly authorize seizure of blood, hair, cheek cells, fingerprints | State argued broad statutory language covers property/instrumentalities of a crime | Court declined to decide (reversed on Leon ground) and noted statute raises a novel question for legislature to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (warrant must show how evidence sought will aid apprehension/conviction)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (evidence sought must be tied to suspected crime)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (limits on bodily intrusions; exigency and justification required)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for anonymous tips and probable cause)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant particularity defect so obvious that reasonable officer would know it was invalid)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (objective reasonableness standard for warrants and qualified immunity)
- United States v. Danhauer, 229 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2000) (good-faith applied where officers corroborated informant’s allegations)
- United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2003) (good-faith inapplicable where anonymous tips were uncorroborated and sparse)