Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Kansas Defenders

Public Defense

: Kansas Defenders

Outside the scope [NOT FINAL]

Mark Schoenhofer won in State v. Morlock, No. 97,447 (Kan. App. Aug. 29, 2008), reversing a Sedgwick County possession with intent conviction. The conviction stemmed from evidence obtained during a car stop. The COA majority held that questioning by officers about Mr. Morlock's travel plans exceeded the scope of a proper traffic detention:

In summary, under the circumstances of this case, some of [Deputy] Cocking's routine questions of Morlock and O'Kelly about their travel plans were reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop, and the inquiries did not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of the stop. However, some of the questions were improper. Specifically, Cocking had no authority to ask O'Kelly how long he had been in Phoenix and what he was doing in there. Cocking also had no authority to ask Morlock how long he had been in Phoenix, why he went to Phoenix, and why he flew to Phoenix but was driving back. We conclude these questions were not reasonably related in scope to the traffic infraction which justified the stop in the first place.

And the majority held that a warrants check was also impermissible in the specific circumstances of the case:

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Cocking lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time Cocking requested Morlock's driver's license to run a warrant check. Thus, Cocking's action in this regard unreasonably extended the scope and duration of the traffic stop and violated Morlock's constitutional rights.

This case presents a lot of law on the issue of what officers can and can't do during a traffic stop, if you are looking for a treatise on the subject.

Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on September 02, 2008 (boomark / email).