State v. Thomas, 246 P.3d 678

Thomas stopped by Officer Brown who pursued two-stage encounter starting with a consensual initial questioning and later an investigatory detention.
Second stage involved accusatory questions, a call for back-up, and continued questioning after she expressed refusals and made incriminating admissions.
Thomas admitted possessing two crack pipes only after the back-up request and was arrested without a voluntary, clearly communicated right to leave.
District court found the second stage voluntary and admitted statements; Court of Appeals later affirmed three issues but remanded for probation sentence, reversed on others.
This Court holds the second stage was an unlawful detention lacking reasonable suspicion and suppresses the evidence; also addresses speedy-trial timing and preserves Sixth Amendment issue only for review limitations.
The Court reverses the conviction and remands for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence—was second-stage detention lawful?	Thomas argues second stage was investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion.	State contends the entire encounter was consensual.	Second stage unlawfully detention; evidence excluded.
Was Thomas denied the statutory right to a speedy trial?	Thomas asserts trial occurred after >180 days attributable to State.	State argues within 180 days total; days allocated vary.	Thomas was not denied speedy-trial rights; 179 days assessed to State.
Was admitting the KBI report a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue preserved for review?	Thomas argues confrontation rights violated; not preserved.	State cites contemporaneous objection rules; preclusion applies.	Issue not preserved for appeal under contemporaneous objection rule.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (reasonable-suspicion standard; minimal justification)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (mere police approach not a seizure unless coercive circumstances)
State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547 (2010) (two-step suppression; totality of circumstances scrutiny)
State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (2007) (consensual vs. seizure; totality approach)
State v. Reason, 263 Kan. 405 (1997) (freedom to disregard police questions; coercive factors)
Vaughn, 288 Kan. 140 (2009) (speedy-trial clock starts at arraignment; delay considerations)
State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344 (2007) (reasonable suspicion standards; totality considerations)
State v. Prewett, 246 Kan. 39 (1990) (time starts running after competency matters)
State v. Dreher, 239 Kan. 259 (1986) (duty on State to bring to trial within allowed time)