130 P.3d 1 | Kan. | 2006
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Robert D. Hill appeals his convictions of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, and possession of ephedrine. Hill’s convictions were previously affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This court granted Hill’s petition for review to consider his claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by the police after his arrest without probable cause. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on other grounds.
On July 19, 2000, officers from the Salina Police Department Drug Task Force collected the trash from fire curb outside a house at 740 S. Tenth Street in Salina. In the trash, officers found a complete methamphetamine lab and mail addressed to Charles L. Grandpre. Officers preparing the search warrant for the house listed Grandpre and others in the affidavit for the search warrant.
Approximately an hour later, Grandpre exited tire house, went next door, briefly talked with the neighbors, then retrieved the mail from the mailbox of the house to be searched and re-entered the house. A few minutes later, Grandpre and Hill left the house and drove away in Grandpre’s truck. Hill was driving the truck.
When the two individuals drove away from the house, Officer Hanus was aware that a search warrant had been issued and other officers were in the process of preparing a search plan. As Hill drove away, Officer Hanus decided to follow the truck. Officer Hanus followed Hill to a convenience store where Hill parked and went inside. Grandpre remained in the truck. Officer Hanus did not stop Hill and Grandpre at the convenience store, because his back-up units had not arrived. When Hill left the convenience store and drove to another location, Officer Hanus followed the truck. At some point, Hill stopped the truck in the street and let Grandpre out.
Because he was concerned that the two would separate and get away, Officer Harms exited his vehicle, drew his gun, ordered Hill out of die truck, and then commanded Hill and Grandpre to lie on the ground. Other officers immediately arrived on the scene. Officer Hanus instructed the odier officers to handcuff Hill and Grandpre. The officers then searched Hill and Grandpre for weapons and contraband. No weapons or contraband were found on Hill. At Hill’s request, an officer removed Hill’s handcuffs.
Grandpre and Hill were separated. After giving Grandpre oral Miranda warnings, Officer Hanus first spoke to Grandpre. Grandpre identified Hill and advised Officer Hanus that Hill was his roommate. Officer Hanus then gave Hill the oral Miranda warnings and questioned Hill as to whether he lived at 740 S. Tenth
Officer Hanus then arrested Hill, placed the handcuffs back on Hill, and searched Hill incident to the arrest. Finding a set of keys in Hill’s pocket, Officer Hanus removed the keys and asked Hill which key unlocked the front door of the house. Hill did not initially respond but later, due to Officer Hanus’ persistent questioning, Hill showed the officer which key opened the front door of the house to be searched. Officers then transported Hill and Grandpre to the police station. Officer Hanus returned to the house at 740 S. Tenth Street, used the key taken from Hill to open the front door, and participated in the search.
Inside the house, officers detected a strong odor of ether, which is used in manufacturing methamphetamine, and found physical evidence that someone had been manufacturing methamphetamine in die house. The officers also found Hill’s wallet and driver’s license, some clothing with Hill’s name on it, mail addressed to Hill at another address, and a wooden plaque with Hill’s name on it. Officer Hanus then returned to the police station, where he again Mirandized Hill and Grandpre and then interviewed them separately.
Grandpre stated to Officer Hanus that Hill had been living in his house for approximately 2 weeks and that Hill’s bedroom was in the basement. When questioned by Hanus, Hill denied living at 740 S. Tenth Street. Hill admitted that half of his property was in the house searched and the other half of his property was at a different address. Hill admitted to the officer that he used methamphetamine and that the previous night he had observed someone else making methamphetamine at 740 S. Tenth Street. Hill denied any involvement in manufacturing the methamphetamine.
The State prosecuted Hill and his codefendants, Grandpre, Darin Norris, Brian Schmidt, and Scott Cordell. Hill was charged with two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, one count of possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Subsequently Hill filed a motion to suppress his statements and the key found in his pocket. Hill
Hill then waived his right to a jury trial. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Codefendants Grandpre and Norris testified against Hill. The judge found Hill guilty of two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. The trial judge acquitted Hill, who had a prior felony conviction, of the charge for possession of a firearm that was found during the search of the house.
Hill appealed his convictions and his sentence to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hill’s convictions but reversed his sentences and remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing. State v. Hill, No. 89,572, unpublished opinion filed March 11, 2005. This court granted Hill’s petition for review on the limited issue of whether the district court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence.
Hill unsuccessfully asserted to the district judge that he was arrested without probable cause when Officer Hanus ordered him to get out of the pickup at gunpoint, handcuffed him, frisked him, and interrogated him. Hill argued to the Court of Appeals that the trial court should have suppressed his statements to the police and the house key found in his pocket because they were obtained during an unreasonable search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
When reviewing a defendant’s request to suppress evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings using a substantial competent evidence standard. However, the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 71, 73, 106 P.3d 1 (2005). If the facts are undisputed, the question of whether evidence should have been suppressed is a question of law, and this court has unlimited review. State v. Ramirez, 278 Kan. 402, 404, 100 P.3d 94 (2004).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 404. A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a clearly recognized exception. A warrantless arrest in a public place does not violate the Fourth Amendment or the Kansas Constitution if the arrest is based on probable cause that the person has committed or is committing a felony. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2401; Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 405. Hill asserts that he was arrested without a warrant or probable cause that he had committed or was committing a felony. Hill argues that under these circumstances, his arrest was unconstitutional and, therefore, his motion to suppress should have been granted and his conviction must be set aside.
Hill’s Arrest
There are four types of police-citizen encounters. The first type is a voluntary encounter, which is not considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Nickelson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 33 Kan. App. 2d 359, 362, 102 P.3d 490 (2004). The second type is an investigatory detention or Terry stop, in which an officer may detain any person in a public place if the officer reasonably suspects that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. K.S.A. 22-2402(1); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). During a Terry stop the officer is allowed to frisk the person seized for weapons if necessary for the officer’s personal safety. K.S.A. 22-2402(2). The third type of encounter is a public safety stop in which an officer may approach a person to check on his or her welfare when the officer can articulate specific facts indicating a concern for the public’s safety. State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824, 840 P.2d 511 (1992); Nicholson, 33 Kan. App. 2d at 364-65; for cases involving a public
The Court of Appeals characterized the initial stop as voluntary because Hill had stopped the truck in the street to let Grandpre out. We note that although Hill voluntarily stopped the truck to let Grandpre out, he was not aware of Officer Hanus’ presence. Officer Hanus approached the stopped truck with his gun drawn, ordered Hill out of the truck, commanded Hill and Grandpre to lie on the ground, and had them handcuffed by other officers.
A person is seized when an officer accosts the person and restrains the person’s freedom to walk away. A person can be seized without being under arrest, making the encounter an investigatory detention. State v. Boone, 220 Kan. 758, 764, 556 P.2d 864 (1976). The Court of Appeals characterization of Officer Hanus’ initial contact with Hill as a voluntary encounter is not supported by tire record or the law. Under the facts, Officer Hanus’ initial contact with Hill was not a voluntary encounter; it was either a Terry investigatory detention or an arrest.
Hill argues to this court that the use of drawn guns and handcuffs escalated the stop from an investigatory detention to an arrest. To support this argument Hill relies on State v. Vandevort, 276 Kan. 164, 72 P.3d 925 (2003), State v. Deal, 271 Kan. 483, 23 P.3d 840 (2001), and State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 978 P.2d 277 (1999), for tire proposition that handcuffs are the touchstone of a Fourth Amendment analysis. After reviewing each case, we note that the cases cited involve a Fifth Amendment analysis regarding the necessity for Miranda warnings in custodial interrogation and do not include a Fourth Amendment analysis regarding when an arrest occurs.
Contrary to Hill’s claim, the use of handcuffs does not necessarily convert an investigatory stop into an arrest. In State v. Baker, 239 Kan. 403, 405, 409, 720 P.2d 1112 (1986), a police officer, who was en route to an armed robbery, observed a car traveling in the opposite direction. The occupants of the car appeared similar to the description of the robbers. When the officer turned around to
The Baker court found the initial stop was a Terry investigatory detention rather than an arrest, and concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the car. After the officers had observed the money and gun in plain view inside the car, they had probable cause to arrest the occupants. Baker, 239 Kan. at 409; see also City of Topeka v. Grabauskas, 33 Kan. App. 2d 210, 219-20, 99 P.3d 1125 (2004) (concluding that police officers properly stopped defendant for public safety function but did not have reasonable suspicion to support handcuffing defendant and throwing her to the ground causing defendant’s broken arm); State v. Nugent, 15 Kan. App. 2d 554, 564, 811 P.2d 890 (1991) (upholding Terry stop where officer ordered defendant out of the car at gunpoint and handcuffed him before searching him for weapons).
Pursuant to statute, a person is considered to be under arrest when he or she is physically restrained or when he or she submits to the officer’s custody for the purpose of answering for tire commission of a crime. K.S.A. 22-2202(4); K.S.A. 22-2405(1). This court has recognized a range of actions to establish when an arrest occurs.
In State v. Abbott, 277 Kan. 161, 162, 83 P.3d 794 (2004), police were told by a confidential informant (Cl) that the defendant would be traveling to a specified place in a two-tone van at a set time to purchase drugs from a certain individual. The officer was aware that the individual had previously sold drugs, so the officer set up surveillance at the location specified by the CL The two-tone van arrived as expected and left a short time later. The officer followed the van, stopping it a short distance from the house and ordering the defendant and his companions to exit the van. The
In Ramirez, 278 Kan. 402, the defendant was in a bar known for drug activity. A sheriff s deputy, who knew the defendant, observed that the defendant was under the influence, uncharacteristically avoiding eye contact with him, acting nervous, and holding a piece of torn plastic. The deputy asked the defendant what she had in her hand. When she failed to respond, the deputy grabbed the defendant’s wrist and asked her to open her hand. The open hand revealed cocaine in the plastic bag. The deputy seized the bag, handcuffed the defendant, and removed her from the bar. Although the State did not contest the trial court’s finding that the defendant was arrested when the deputy grabbed her wrist, the Ramirez court analyzed the issue as an arrest rather than an investigatory detention. Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 405-07. The Ramirez court concluded that the totality of the circumstances established the necessary probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 408-09.
In State v. Payne, 273 Kan. 466, 468-69, 473, 44 P.3d 419 (2002), this court concluded that the defendant had been arrested when officers pulled him out of a car, ordered him on the ground, and handcuffed him at gunpoint. Likewise, in State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 375, 807 P.2d 86 (1991), this court concluded that the defendant was subjected to a warrantless arrest when officers ordered him from a vehicle at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and transported him to the police station, even though the police had not informed tire defendant that he was under arrest.
The facts in this case are similar to those in Baker, Nugent, Payne, and Mayberry. However, there is a contradiction as to when the arrest occuzred in those cases. The more recent cases, Payne and Mayberry, support the conclusion that Officer Hanus arrested Hill when he ordered him from the truck at gunpoint and handcuffed him. Baker and Nugent, on the other hand, support the
Officer Hanus testified that he did not plan to arrest Hill when he ordered him out of the truck and that he did not believe Hill was under arrest at that time. Officer Hanus’ subjective intentions are supported by the fact that he released Hill from the handcuffs upon Hill’s request when the officers did not find contraband or weapons on Hill. Nevertheless, the test for whether there was an arrest is not based on the officer’s subjective belief. Rather, the test for whether a seizure and an arrest has occurred is based on what a reasonable person would believe under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the incident. State v. Morris, 276 Kan. 11, 18-19 72 P.3d 570 (2003). We conclude that the initial encounter between Hill and Officer Hanus was an arrest, therefore the next step in our analysis is whether, at that point, Officer Hanus had probable cause to arrest Hill.
Probable Cause to Arrest
“[T]he Fourth Amendment permits a duly authorized law enforcement officer to malee a warrantless arrest in a public place even though he had adequate opportunity to procure a warrant after developing probable cause for arrest.” United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 426-27, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598, 96 S. Ct. 820 (1976); see State v. Platten, 225 Kan. 764, Syl. ¶ 2, 594 P.2d 201 (1979). A suspect may also be arrested without a warrant in the following circumstances:
“(b) The officer has probable cause to believe that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in this state or in another jurisdiction for a felony committed therein.
“(c) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed:
(1) A felony; or
(2) a misdemeanor, and the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that:
*146 (A) The person will not be apprehended or evidence of the crime will be irretrievably lost unless the person is immediately arrested;
(B) tire person may cause injury to self or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or
(C) tire person has intentionally inflicted bodily harm to another person.
“(d) Any crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the person in tire officer s view.” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2401.
Probable cause is the reasonable belief that a specific crime has been or is being committed and that the defendant committed the crime. Abbott, 277 Kan. at 164. Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer s knowledge are sufficient to assure a person of reasonable caution that an offense has been or is being committed and the person being arrested is or was involved in a crime. The officer’s knowledge must be based on reasonably trustworthy information. To determine whether probable cause exists, an appellate court considers the totality of the circumstances, including all of the information in the officer’s possession, fair inferences drawn therefrom, and any other relevant facts, even if they may not be admissible at trial. Abbott, 277 Kan. at 164. We view the totality of the circumstances by evaluating the information from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer. Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 407. It is important to note that mere proximity to others who are independently suspected of criminal activity, without more, does not establish probable cause. Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 406.
In State v. Peters, 5 Kan. App. 2d 44, 611 P.2d 178 (1980), the Court of Appeals considered whether it was constitutional to search a person who came to a residence while officers were in die process of executing a search warrant. Peters, who was not the occupant or owner of the residence, arrived at the residence after the officers had been diere for approximately IVz hours. Peters knocked on die door, and the officers admitted him into die house being searched. Upon entering, Peters was immediately arrested and acquiesced to the officers’ authority. Peters did not threaten the officers physically or verbally. Officers searched Peters and found heroin.
Officer Hanus did not know Hill or Grandpre but laiew the truck was registered to a Charles Grandpre. Officer Hanus had previously observed Grandpre talk to a neighbor and get the mail for the house to be searched. Grandpre’s name was on some of the mail previously found in the trash, so, when obtaining the search warrant, police expected someone named Grandpre to be a resident of the house to be searched. Officer Hanus did not attempt to stop and detain Hill and Grandpre until Grandpre got out of his truck and it appeared that Hill and Grandpre were separating. Based on this information, Officer Hanus had probable cause to believe that Grandpre was a resident at 740 S. Tenth Street and responsible for manufacturing methamphetamine there.
However, the same probable cause analysis for arresting Grandpre does not apply to Hill. Officer Hanus did not expect Hill to be a resident at 740 S. Tenth Street. Although several other individuals were named in the search warrant for the house, Hill’s name was not included in the search warrant. Officer Hanus testified that
The Court of Appeals did not analyze this issue as a warrantless arrest. Rather, the Court of Appeals limited its analysis to a Terry stop. Relying on Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340, 101 S. Ct. 2587 (1981), the Court of Appeals concluded that there was reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory detention of Hill. In Summers, the United States Supreme Court held that officers executing a search warrant at a house could detain the resident during the search and arrest the resident without a warrant after finding drugs in the house. 452 U.S. at 693, 704-05. The Summers Court concluded that the restraint of the defendant’s freedom was less intrusive than the search of his home, which was based on probable cause. 452 U.S. at 701. The Summers Court also justified tbe detention because it prevented flight in the event incriminating evidence was found and minimized the risk of harm to the officers executing the search warrant. 452 U.S. at 702.
Summers is distinguishable from this case because Hill and Grandpre were not detained at the house while the search warrant was executed. Rather, Hill and Grandpre were arrested without warrants prior to the search and detained at the police station prior to the search of the house. The facts that form the basis for the Summers Court’s decision do not exist in this case. The restraint on Hill’s freedom during the search was not less intrusive than the search itself. Prior to the execution of the search of the house, Hill had been arrested and was in police custody at the police station. Hill was not detained at the house until evidence was found. Hill’s
Similarly, Hill’s arrest did not prevent the rislc of flight in the event incriminating evidence was found during the subsequent search of the house. Hill’s arrest prevented flight regardless of whether any incriminating evidence was found in the house.
Finally, arresting Hill away from the house was unnecessary to minimize the risk of harm to the officers executing the search warrant. The officers knew that Hill and Grandpre were not at the house. Had Hill and Grandpre returned to the house while the officers were executing the search warrant, the situation would have been aligned with that in Summers, justifying a detention at that point. The Court of Appeals reliance on Summers was misplaced.
K.S.A. 22-2402 provides:
“(1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand . . , the name [and] address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.
“(2) When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that such officer’s personal safety requires it, such officer may frisk such person for firearms or other dangerous weapons. If the law enforcement officer finds a firearm or weapon, or other thing, the possession of which may be a crime or evidence of crime, such officer may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time such officer shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.”
“ ‘Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause, not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less rehable than that required to show probable cause. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors, quantity and quality, are considered in the totality of the circumstances that must be taken into account when evaluating whether reasonable suspicion exists.’ ” Morris, 276 Kan. at 24.
In Morris, the defendant was approached by officers while he was parked near a lake. Earlier in the day, officers had seen Morris talking to a woman who was under surveillance while officers attempted to secure a search warrant for her house to find evidence
On the other hand, in State v. Hardyway, 264 Kan. 451, 958 P.2d 618 (1997), this court reached the opposite result. Police were conducting surveillance on several residences, attempting to establish probable cause for a search warrant. The officers were advised that a passenger in a brown Cadillac had entered one of the residences, remained for a short period of time, and returned to the car. An officer stopped the Cadillac for a traffic violation and noticed that Hardyway was not wearing a seatbelt. The officer asked Hardyway to exit the vehicle and speak with him at the rear of the car. Hardyway complied. The officer advised Hardyway that he believed Hardyway had just purchased drugs and asked for permission to search Hardyway. Hardyway consented, and the officer found drugs in Hardyway’s pocket. Hardyway argued that the evidence should have heen suppressed. The majority of the Hardy-way court, concluded that there was reasonable suspicion to support Plardyway’s initial detention when the officer asked Hardyway to exit the car and prior to Hardyway’s consent to be searched. 264 Kan. at 459-60.
In State v. Griffin, 31 Kan. App. 2d 149, 151, 156, 61 P.3d 112, rev. denied 275 Kan. 966 (2003), the Court of Appeals concluded that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention of a car parked outside a residence that was being searched pursuant to a search warrant for drugs. The car pulled up in front of the residence at about 11 p.m. None of the surrounding businesses were open at that time of night. The defendant, a passenger in the car, was a known drug user. In addition, officers had arrested a person in another vehicle for possession of cocaine at the same residence that night.
Likewise, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was reasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention in State v. Keene, 8 Kan. App. 2d 88, 650 P.2d 719, rev. denied 232 Kan. 876 (1982). In Keene, the police were conducting surveillance to establish the probable cause for a search warrant based on information from rehable informants. The officers observed a man get out of a car, go in the house for a short time, and return to the car with the defendant, who was cariying a sleeping bag. The officers followed the car and later stopped die car to conduct a “ ‘field investigation/ ” 8 Kan. App. 2d at 89. After observing two open containers of beer, the officers asked if tiiey could search the car, and the driver consented. The officers found marijuana in die sleeping bag the defendant had been carrying.
We find the facts in this case more analogous to the facts in Morris, 276 Kan. 11. Officer Hanus knew less about Hill than the officers knew about Morris. In Morris, the officers were familiar with Morris and knew that he had cooked methamphetamine at the lake on another occasion. In this case, Officer Hanus did not know Hill and did not expect him to be connected with the house at 740 S. Tenth Street. Although Hill was observed at the residence while officers waited for a search warrant and Morris was merely
We conclude that Hill was arrested without probable cause and illegally detained without reasonable suspicion. However, such a determination does not automatically preclude Hill from being prosecuted. A court is not divested of jurisdiction because the defendant has been unlawfully arrested. Even when the initial arrest is without probable cause, if the taint of the illegal arrest is sufficiently separate from the statement or evidence obtained, the evidence may be admitted. State v. Weis, 246 Kan. 694, 697, 792 P.2d 989 (1990).
Hill made some statements to Officer Planus, and Officer Hanus seized the house key from Hill’s pocket at the scene of Hill’s arrest. Evidence obtained from the defendant at the time of the defendant’s unlawful arrest or illegal detention must be suppressed. State v. McKeown, 249 Kan. 506, 508, 515, 819 P.2d 644 (1991). In McKeown, the defendant was stopped by an officer on a rural gravel road late in tire evening. The officer had been dispatched to the area because a nearby resident contacted police about an unfamiliar green pickup truck parked alongside tire road. Although the resident did not report any criminal activity, the officer had been dispatched to check on the truck. After stopping the truck, the officer detected the odor of burning marijuana and asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle. When tbe defendant exited the truck, the officer observed an open can of beer and arrested the defendant for illegally transporting liquor. A search incident to the arrest revealed marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the defendant’s pockets. Although the State argued that the officer had conducted a proper Terry stop, the McKeown court held that there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant’s vehicle because the officer testified that he had observed no wrong
In addition to the statements Hill made during his illegal arrest, Hill made incriminating statements during his subsequent interrogation at the police station. The admission or suppression of these later statements requires a different analysis because the statements did not occur simultaneously with the arrest. We have set forth the following four factors to be considered in determining whether a confession obtained following an arrest without probable cause is admissible: “(1) whether Miranda warnings were given, (2) the proximity of the illegal arrest and the statement or confession, (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the officer’s misconduct, and (4) other intervening circumstances.” Weis, 246 Kan. at 698.
In Weis, officers were conducting surveillance at a house as a part of a drug investigation of Weis’ husband and another man. An officer followed Weis’ husband and his friend when they left the house and arrested them. To protect evidence thought to be in the house, the officer secured the house until a search warrant could be obtained. A couple of hours later, Weis arrived at the house and was stopped by the officer, who told her that he would arrest her if she attempted to enter the house before the search warrant was obtained. The officer then instructed Weis to go to the police station to get her husband and arranged a police escort to take her to the police station.
At the police station, officers placed Weis in a locked room, searched her purse and confiscated her car keys. Later, an officer gave Weis Miranda warnings but refused her request for an attorney or to use the phone. Nearly 4 hours after she arrived at the police station, officers escorted Weis back to her house and held her in custody while other officers executed the search of the house. Officers denied Weis’ requests to use the phone at her house.
During the search officers found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the house. After Weis admitted that some of the contra
The Weis court evaluated the four factors to determine whether Weis’ confession should have been suppressed. Although the officers had advised Weis of her Miranda rights, the Weis court held that Weis’ statements were obtained by tire exploitation of her unlawful arrest and suppressed them. 246 Kan. at 699. In reaching this conclusion the Weis court noted that Weis had been subjected to 4 hours of unbroken custodial interrogation, the police committed misconduct when they denied her requests for an attorney and to use the phone, and there was no intervening event between Weis’ illegal detention at the police station and her statement at the house. 246 Kan. at 698.
Although there is no evidence that officers denied Hill’s request for an attorney or prevented Hill from using the phone in this case, the facts in Weis are similar to the facts in this case. Like Weis, the only factor that weighs in favor of attenuating the unlawful arrest and admitting Hill’s statements is the fact that Officer Hanus Mirandized Hill before Hill made the statements.
The three remaining factors weigh in favor of suppressing Hill’s statements. During the nearly 9 hours between Hill’s unlawful arrest and his interrogation at the police station after die search of the house was completed, Hill was held in police custody. Like Weis, Hill was not free to leave. The purpose of Officer Hanus’ seizure was to prevent Hill and Grandpre from separating and to preserve evidence. The officer in Weis also sought to preserve evidence. Nevertheless, Officer Hanus’ actions in ordering Hill out of the truck at gunpoint and handcuffing him were flagrant based on the facts of the case. Finally, there are no intervening events to bréale the connection between Hill’s unlawful arrest and his later statements. During the 9 hours between Hill’s arrest and his in
We conclude that Hill’s statements and the key from his pocket were tainted by his unlawful arrest and therefore inadmissible. However, before reversing Hill’s conviction, we must determine whether the erroneous admission of the evidence in violation of Hill’s Fourth Amendment rights was harmless error.
Harmless Error
An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held harmless unless the appellate court can declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial. When the evidence of guilt is direct and overwhelming, the erroneous admission of evidence in violation of a constitutional right could not have affected the result of the trial, and the error is harmless. State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 96, 82 P.3d 470 (2004).
At trial two codefendants, Grandpre and Darin Norris, testified against Hill. Grandpre testified that he did not make methamphetamine at his house but that Hill admitted making methamphetamine to help with the rent. Norris testified that Hill was teaching him how to make methamphetamine and that Hill had performed the final gassing process at the house on Tenth Street. With this direct evidence of Hill’s involvement in manufacturing methamphetamine, the trial court did not have to rely on Hill’s statements or the key from Hill’s pocket to infer that Hill was responsible because he was a resident of the house. In fact, the trial court did not rely on this evidence when the judge found Hill guilty, stating, “I don’t care who lived at 740 South Tenth. Doesn’t malee any difference to me. That’s just the site of the crime.”
Hill was arrested without probable cause during his initial encounter with Officer Hanus when he was ordered out of the truck at gunpoint and handcuffed. Thus, the trial court erroneously de
The Court of Appeals is affirmed on other grounds. Convictions affirmed.
