State v. Sutton, 122038

Kansas City, MO officers stopped vehicle driven by Christopher Bell; passenger Linda Sutton was briefly handcuffed after an officer mistakenly believed she had an outstanding warrant; cuffs were removed after identity/warrant check.
Officers located a baggie of methamphetamine on Bell and placed him in a patrol car while awaiting Leawood (KS) officers to assume the investigation.
While officers watched, Bell and Sutton kissed multiple times; during a wide open‑mouthed kiss Bell appeared to move something with his tongue and Sutton then immediately leaned over and spit into a QuikTrip cup she had requested earlier.
Officer Hawley suspected Bell had passed contraband to Sutton; officers searched the cup and found what appeared to be the methamphetamine baggie previously seen on Bell.
Sutton was arrested for possession; she moved to suppress the evidence as fruit of an unlawful seizure after removal of the handcuffs; the district court denied suppression and convicted her after a stipulated‑facts bench trial; Sutton appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the post‑cuff interaction was objectively voluntary, and alternatively (per concurrence) that Sutton’s intervening conduct attenuated any Fourth Amendment taint.

Issue	Sutton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Sutton remained seized (i.e., not free to leave) after officers removed her handcuffs while awaiting Leawood officers	The encounter remained an unlawful detention because she was recently handcuffed, stranded on a highway, not told she was free to leave, and an officer testified he believed she was detained	The encounter became consensual after cuffs removed: no physical restraint, no weapons/commands, officers accommodated her requests and she freely interacted (kissed) with Bell	Court: No seizure after cuffs removed under the totality of circumstances; encounter was voluntary (district court ruling affirmed)
If the post‑cuff encounter were an unlawful seizure, whether Sutton’s subsequent conduct attenuated the taint so evidence is admissible	Suppression required as fruit of the poisonous tree from an unlawful detention	Sutton’s conspicuous conduct (kissing, apparent transfer, spitting into cup) was an independent intervening act giving officers reasonable suspicion/probable cause; attenuation doctrine applies	Held alternatively admissible: Sutton’s independent actions were an intervening circumstance that, together with lack of flagrant police misconduct, sufficiently attenuated any taint

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (establishes "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (sets attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of misconduct)
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (attenuation analysis; good‑faith mistakes can weigh against exclusion)
State v. Christian, 310 Kan. 229 (Kansas discussion of attenuation doctrine and factual review)
State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (totality‑of‑circumstances test; officer's subjective intent generally irrelevant)
State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453 (intervening circumstances analysis for attenuation; whether officer observed criminal act and probable cause)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment seizure analysis)