262 P.3d 689
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Stopped for failing to signal within proper distance; vehicle had sole occupant Stevenson.
- Officers detected an extremely strong odor of alcohol inside the car; Stevenson not shown intoxicated.
- Search of the car occurred without Stevenson’s consent; officers found a large wine bottle leaking wine, methamphetamine paraphernalia, and scales.
- Methamphetamine found in Stevenson’s wallet after arrest; Stevenson convicted of possession at bench trial on stipulated facts.
- Stevenson moved to suppress; district court denied the motion, ruling the odor provided probable cause for an open-container search and the search incident to arrest was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a very strong odor of alcohol from inside a vehicle, with the occupant excluded, establish probable cause to search for open containers? | Stevenson argues odor alone is insufficient. | State argues odor plus totality of circumstances justifies search. | Yes; odor plus excluded source constitutes probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fitzgerald, 286 Kan. 1124 (2008) (probable cause review is de novo in suppression rulings)
- State v. Bickerstaff, 26 Kan. App. 2d 423 (1999) (odor plus other factors can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)
- State v. Ibarra, 282 Kan. 530 (2006) (odor of legal substance alone may not justify a search; must be part of totality of circumstances)
- State v. Wigginton, 142 Idaho 180 (2005) (overwhelming odor plus other information can indicate open container; takes factual context into account)
- State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980 (2009) (circumstances allowing broadened inquiry if suspicions extend beyond traffic stop)