Opinion ID: 2353703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Justification of Search of Cigarette Pack

Text: The last question we must address is whether Tucker's search of the cigarette pack also was justified by Terry and K.S.A. 22-2402(2). The Court of Appeals majority said no, drawing an analogy between the cigarette pack and a purse. See Johnson, 42 Kan.App.2d at 806-08, 217 P.3d 42 (discussing In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, 373-75, 174 P.3d 282 [Ariz.App.2008] [danger justifying seizure dissipated once officer seized purse; no need to search purse for weapon when purse in officer's control]; Webster v. State, 908 N.E.2d 289, 293 [Ind.App. 2009] [once officer secured purse, search of it invalid]). Courts in other states also have held that a search of a seized cigarette pack exceeded permissible law enforcement action under Terry. See State v. Sheehan, 767 So.2d 1 (La.1999) (search of cigarette pack from defendant's pocket exceeded scope of Terry despite officer's experience finding razor blades); United States v. Lee, No. 3:04CR307, 2007 WL 3306674 (E.D.Vir.2007) (unpublished opinion) (opening of cigarette pack after removing it from suspect exceeded permissible scope of Terry ); State v. Kendall, No. A11-378, 2011 WL 2437507 (Minn. App.2011) (unpublished opinion) (opening of cigarette case went beyond what was necessary, reasonable for officer safety); see also State v. Barney, 708 So.2d 1205, 1208-11 (La.App.1998) (matchbox removed from defendant's pocket ceased to be threat to officer). The result and reasoning of our Court of Appeals and our sister states is sound. Indeed, if Tucker's alternate recitation of the order of events is believed, he placed the unopened cigarette pack on top of Johnson's purse within her reach on the kitchen counter. If he, in fact, did so, no action could more convincingly demonstrate that he perceived no danger to himself or his fellow officers. Once Tucker secured the pack of cigarettes, any nonhysterical threat its contents may have posed was eliminated and no further search was permitted. We also note that the prosecutor's insistence at oral argument that a ruling in Johnson's favor on this point would expose law enforcement officers to a new and unacceptable risk is misguided. To the extent there is a threat, it is not new; and our legislature evidently deemed it acceptable. K.S.A. 22-2402(2)again, a Kansas codification of Terry specifically allows an officer to seize and keep only items the possession of which may be a crime or evidence of crime . . . until the completion of the questioning, at which time such officer shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person. It does not permit a general search of any seized item not immediately recognizable as an unlawfully possessed weapon or other evidence of a crime. There may be those who believe smoking to be unwise but, so far, those who indulge in it in private residences are not subject to criminal prosecution. With no authority to search the seized cigarette pack, Tucker was permitted to hold onto it until he finished questioning Johnson. Then he was required to return it to her and let her continue about her business. Without the unlawful search of the cigarette pack and the cascade of events that followed it, there was not a basis for Johnson's arrest. Johnson's motion to suppress should have been granted. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals majority opinion and reverse the judgment of the district court. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MORITZ, J., not participating. JAMES FRANKLIN DAVIS, District Judge, assigned.