State v. Walker
251 P.3d 618
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Walker was detained after Pittman matched his description to a nearby burglary suspect and asked for identification.
- Walker was located two blocks from the crime scene and within minutes of the incident, sitting at a bus stop as described by Torono.
- Pittman ran a records check on Walker after obtaining his Missouri ID and discovered an active arrest warrant, followed by Walker’s arrest.
- During the encounter, drugs (cocaine and marijuana) were found in Walker's pockets after a search incident to arrest.
- Walker testified that Pittman searched his backpack before running the records check and claimed the cocaine was taken from a kid and intended for disposal.
- The district court denied suppression; a jury convicted Walker, and the Court of Appeals affirmed prior to the Kansas Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pittman had reasonable suspicion to detain Walker | Walker: description too vague to justify detention | Walker: Pittman’s encounter was a seizure with enough suspicion | Yes; Pittman had reasonable suspicion |
| Whether Pittman exceeded the scope by a records check during the detention | Walker: records check beyond permissible scope | Walker: Morlock/Johnson guidance support permissible background checks | No; records check within permissible scope |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 291 Kan. 676 (2011) (establishes mixed standard for suppression review)
- State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547 (2010) (totality of circumstances for seizures; mixed questions)
- State v. Reason, 263 Kan. 405 (1997) (consensual encounter vs. seizure; factors for coercion)
- State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (2007) (totality of circumstances framework; reasonable person free to disregard questions)
- State v. Baker, 239 Kan. 403 (1986) (reasonableness of stop based on robbery description and proximity)
- State v. Glass, 40 Kan. App. 2d 379 (2008) (five-factor test for reasonable suspicion in swift dispatch cases)
- State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980 (2009) (records checks during lawful stops; Johnson guidance)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (limits on records checks to not prolong detention)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful stop;iDNA not a search)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (questions unrelated to stop may be asked without extending duration)
- United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006) (background checks during pedestrian stops can be permissible)
- People v. Ross, Ill. App. 3 (2000) (descriptions matching suspect details can support detention)