ADVERTISEMENT
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 DefendersHe looks pretty alive to me [NOT FINAL]
ADVERTISEMENTS
Washburn student intern Laurie Blanton and I won in State v. Shafer, No. 98,016 (Kan. App. Sept. 29, 2008)(unpublished), reversing a Saline County possession conviction. Officers were called to investigate Mr. Shafer who had been reported slumped over in his vehicle in a driveway. Officers woke up Mr. Shafer who indicated that he was fine and had merely locked himself out of his house and did not want to wake people during the night. Even though Mr. Shafer was clearly okay, police detained Mr. Shafer by taking his identification, eventually leading to a search in which officers say they find drugs. The state argued that the continuing encounter was consensual; the COA disagreed:Even if we were to concede that Shafer was not "stopped" or "seized" at the outset of this encounter, there is no question that he must be considered "seized" when the officer requested and retained his drivers' license. Generally, an officer's retention of a defendant's documentation is significant because it indicates the defendant did not reasonably feel free to terminate the encounter. Therefore, when the driver has relinquished his license to an officer, the State cannot rely on the defendant's consent to justify further detention, questioning, or a search. We decline to anyalze this encounter as "consensual" after the officer requested and retained Shafer's license.
Because the officer's actions exceeded the very limited scope of a welfare check, the majority held that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment and reversed.
Judge Leben dissented from the Fourth Amendment ruling, but concurred with reversal and remand because the record did not include a valid waiver of Mr. Shafer's right to a jury trial.
Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on September 26, 2008 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Final Fantasy XI
Square Enix Faces Class Action over Deceptive Fees and Payments
Parmalat SpA
Italy's biggest dairy company awaits final approval for a securities settlement that would pay investors $10.5 million
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.

The right disco song can save lives!
The Most Honest Man in the World ()
Cow ends up in back seat after crash
Short Story Competition: The Grand Final
Pakistanis Burn Robbers Alive in Growing Trend







