Opinion ID: 2635819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion for Detention

Text: First, the defendant argues the officers' reasonable suspicion for detaining her, based upon the reported burglary of the apartment, had dissipated by the time of the search of the cigarette package. The defendant argues the landlord basically verif[ied] her story to police, thereby removing any reasonable suspicion the defendant was not authorized to be in the apartment or that a crime was taking place. The defendant contends because reasonable suspicion no longer existed for an investigatory detention under K.S.A. 22-2402(1), Officer Tucker could not properly seize and search the cigarette package under K.S.A. 22-2402(2). The State contends the defendant failed to raise this ground for suppression before the district court and is therefore precluded from advancing this argument on appeal. The State nevertheless asserts the officers had a duty to investigate the reported burglary and determine from the landlord of the apartment whether the defendant had permission to be in the apartment removing property. Until such permission was confirmed, reasonable suspicion remained to justify the detention. A review of the defendant's suppression motion and the defendant's arguments before the district court reveals the defendant did not articulate an argument based upon the dissipation of reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory detention under K.S.A. 22-2402(1). Instead, the defendant's arguments focused on the lack of reasonable suspicion regarding concern for officer safety as required to justify a limited search under K.S.A. 22-2402(2). On appeal, a defendant may not present reasons for suppression that were not presented to the district court. See State v. Mack, 255 Kan. 21, 27-28, 871 P.2d 1265 (1994); State v. Birth, 37 Kan.App.2d 753, 775, 158 P.3d 345, rev. denied 284 Kan. 947 (2007), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1302, 170 L.Ed.2d 122 (2008). The defendant did not offer this argument to the district court and, therefore, may not advance such issue on appeal. Further, the defendant's argument would likely fail on its merits, as the officers were arguably justified in detaining the defendant, a nontenant of the apartment who appeared to be removing items from the apartment.