ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

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

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Public Defense

: Kansas Defenders

Just because you don't absolutely have to doesn't mean you shouldn't [NOT FINAL]

ADVERTISEMENTS
Washburn student intern Star Jones and I won in State v. Branstetter, No. 98,884 (Kan. App. Jan. 23, 2009), reversing some Sedgwick County drug convictions on Fourth Amendment grounds. The case involved whether state proved the legality of an impoundment search. The state argued that the search was performed pursuant to a police "policy" and, in any case, that under a recent KSC case, officers did not have to seek alternatives to impoundment by the driver/owner. The COA disagreed, holding (1) that the state failed to provide evidence of the actual policy and (2) that the failure to inquire into alternatives to impoundment, although not dispositive, was still part of the totality of circumstances to be considered:
The totality of the circumstances here?i.e., the vehicle was not "unattended," illegally parked, or obstructing traffic?does not permit us to disregard the officer's failure to consider permitting the passenger to drive, to consult Branstetter, or to attempt to contact the registered owner regarding disposition.

Essentially, the State seeks to rely upon an unwritten and unproduced "policy" as carte blanche authority permitting the State to impound a vehicle when the registered owner is not present and the operator is arrested. The State would implement this policy without regard to (1) the wishes of the operator or the owner; (2) whether a passenger may be present to attend to the vehicle; and (3) whether the vehicle presents a safety or traffic hazard. The State's rationale would eviscerate the "reasonable grounds" test established in Fortune and the "totality of the circumstances" analysis espoused by Teeter.

The COA also held that the record supported a claim that the inventory search in this case was pretextual, bolstering its conclusion on the Fourth Amendment issue.

Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on January 23, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
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.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 08:57:51)