State v. Thomas
291 Kan. 676
| Kan. | 2011Background
- On Dec. 19, 2005, Officer Brown stopped Thomas on suspicion related to L.N., leading to a brief, largely consensual first encounter.
- Thomas provided name and details, denied being L.N., and agreed to fill out an interview card after assurances she was not under arrest.
- During a later return contact, Brown pressed questions about drugs; Thomas admitted alcohol use but denied drugs.
- Thomas admitted possession of two crack pipes after Brown called for back-up and conducted further questioning, followed by arrest and Miranda warnings.
- Thomas was convicted of possession of cocaine; the district court denied the suppression motion; Court of Appeals affirmed most issues but vacated probation term.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review on three issues, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the second encounter an unlawful detention? | Thomas: second stage was investigatory detention lacking reasonable suspicion. | State: second stage was consensual; back-up request did not mandate detention. | Second stage unlawfully detained; suppress evidence. |
| Was Thomas denied a speedy trial? | Thomas: more than 180 days elapsed attributable to State. | State: time properly calculated; not violated. | Not denied; trial within 180 days. |
| Did admission of a KBI report without testimony violate Sixth Amendment? | Thomas: issue preservation; confrontation rights implicated. | State: issue not preserved; Puckett doctrine allows review. | Issue not preserved; review limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 1963) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine governs suppression analysis)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court 1983) (mere police approach does not compel a seizure)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (Supreme Court 2000) (reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch)
- State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547 (Kan. 2010) (totality of circumstances; suppression factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344 (Kan. 2007) (reasonable suspicion standards and de novo review of law)
- State v. Vaughn, 288 Kan. 140 (Kan. 2009) (speedy-trial clock starts at arraignment; delays toll the clock)
- State v. Prewett, 246 Kan. 39 (Kan. 1990) (time-start rules after competency determinations)