Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Kansas Defenders
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Public Defense
: Kansas DefendersCall for backup matters
ADVERTISEMENTS
Carl Folsom won in State v. Thomas, No. 98,123 (Kan. Jan. 21, 2011), reversing a Geary County possession conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds. After a brief encounter with Ms. Thomas appeared to be over, an officer asked if he could ask her a few more questions, resulting in an extended encounter, which included calling for back up. The state's main argument was that the extended encounter at issue was voluntary and, therefore, that the Fourth Amendment not implicated. The KSC reviewed caselaw acknowledging that, by itself, law enforcement going up to someone and asking questions does not turn a voluntary encounter into an investigatory detention. But the KSC also held that the facts in this case went beyond simple asking questions. In particular, the KSC held that calling for backup would have a similar effect to the presence of more than one officer--although it did not by itself transform an encounter, it was a very relevant factor in this case:We conclude that Officer Brown's call for back-up, when combined with his other conduct, would convey to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to refuse to answer Brown's questions or otherwise terminate the second stage of the encounter. More specifically, both before and after making the call, Brown repeatedly asked Thomas questions about her drug use and possession. After the call, Thomas emptied her pockets for him, apparently in an attempt to prove her denials. He then asked to feel inside her pockets, and she threw her hands in the air. After Brown again told Thomas to "be honest with me," she confessed to possessing two crack pipes. In contrast to the first stage, at no time during the second stage did Brown tell Thomas she was free to leave.
The KSC went on to hold that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Ms. Thomas and, therefore concluded that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
This a nice example of how, even when an officer asks "Can I ask you just a couple more questions?" (i.e. the Lt. Columbo gambit), it does not necessarily make the resulting encounter voluntary. The circumstances of the resulting encounter still determine that question.
Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on January 21, 2011 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

"Backup There's a Service for That"
WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING RESILIENCE: Will Obama Kill Navigation Backup System as GPS Threatens to F
Jott — A great way to send an e-mail just by dictating it
Call For Papers-->BRAIN Matters: New Directions in Neuroethics
gnome wishlist: one-click backup/restore








