State v. Roberts, 121853

Shortly after midnight March 3, 2018, deputies stopped a truck driven by Bryan Kennedy; they smelled marijuana, saw marijuana residue and a glass pipe, and observed Kennedy acting nervously.
Roberts was a passenger; officers located a suitcase in the truck bed containing a prescription bottle with Roberts' name and, inside a small zipper pouch, methamphetamine, syringes, a scale, and counterfeit bills.
Officers detained Roberts briefly, searched the vehicle without a warrant, and released him at the scene; charges were filed ten months later for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.
The district court denied Roberts' pretrial motion to suppress the suitcase contents and admitted evidence of Roberts' prior methamphetamine distribution conviction to prove intent over his objection.
A jury convicted Roberts on all counts; on appeal the Kansas Court of Appeals held the admission of the prior conviction was erroneous (intent was not disputed) but affirmed denial of the suppression motion; all convictions were reversed and the case remanded for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior conviction to prove intent	Prior distribution conviction shows intent to distribute the meth found and is admissible under K.S.A. 60‑455(b)	Roberts never asserted an innocent explanation for the drugs and denied possession; therefore intent was not put at issue	Court: Admission was erroneous because Roberts disputed possession (not intent); prior conviction risked propensity reasoning; convictions reversed and remanded
Suppression of evidence from warrantless search of suitcase	Probable cause existed (odor of marijuana, residue, pipe, DUI indicators); officers could search vehicle containers without individualized probable cause	Roberts argued officer lacked probable cause when he asked to retrieve property and the search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment	Court: Denial of suppression affirmed—objective probable cause existed to search the vehicle and its containers before Roberts sought his property

State v. Boggs, 287 Kan. 298 (legal standard on prior bad acts and when intent must be in dispute)
State v. Brazzle, 311 Kan. 754 (prior‑acts admissible when defense places intent to distribute at issue)
State v. Brown, 44 Kan. App. 2d 344 (not‑guilty plea or denial of act does not put intent in dispute)
State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271 (limits on searching passenger's purse left in vehicle absent probable cause)
State v. Groshong, 281 Kan. 1050 (purse treated as vehicle container once passenger makes no effort to retrieve it and probable cause develops)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (if probable cause to search vehicle exists, officers may search containers belonging to passengers)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle searches incident to arrest and automobile‑exception principles)
State v. Rosa, 304 Kan. 429 (prior drug connections inadmissible when defendant disputes factual basis rather than offers innocent explanation)