State v. Sanchez-Loredo
272 P.3d 34
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Reno County officers surveilled Sanchez-Loredo as a drug‑trafficking suspect based on prior investigations and observed drug‑related activity.
- Officers followed her from Hutchinson to Dodge City and back toward Hutchinson, ultimately stopping the vehicle in Reno County.
- A canine search failed to alert, leading officers to seek a warrant for the vehicle search.
- A warrant was obtained and executed about 75 minutes after the initial stop, yielding methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
- District court suppressed the evidence, ruling no exigent circumstances existed beyond mobility; Court of Appeals reversed, citing mobility as exigent.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether vehicle mobility alone can establish exigent circumstances for a warrantless search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does vehicle mobility alone create exigent circumstances for a warrantless search based on probable cause? | Sanchez-Loredo argues mobility suffices for exigency. | State argues mobility plus probable cause fits automobile exception without practical warrant delay. | Yes; mobility alone fulfills exigency allowing warrantless search based on probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (United States Supreme Court (1925)) (support for automobile exception based on probable cause and vehicle mobility)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (United States Supreme Court (1970)) (vehicle search permissible despite custodial status of occupants when probable cause exists)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (U.S. Supreme Court (1996)) (car readily mobile with probable cause permits warrantless search without separate exigency)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (U.S. Supreme Court (1999)) (no separate exigency requirement beyond vehicle mobility for automobile exception)
- State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387 (Kan. Supreme Court (2004)) (recognition of automobile exception in Kansas context; mobility and reduced privacy expectation)
- State v. Fitzgerald, 286 Kan. 1124 (Kan. Supreme Court (2008)) (outlined general warrant exceptions and automobile exception; discussed practicability of obtaining warrants)
- State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370 (Kan. Supreme Court (2008)) (exigency to preserve evidence; definition of exigent circumstances in context of automobile searches)
- State v. Jaso, 231 Kan. 614 (Kan. Supreme Court (1982)) (recognizes search of vehicle with probable cause may include areas likely to contain contraband)