Court Opinion

ID: 9796189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:51:41.942276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:53.172652
License: Public Domain

GREENE, J.,
dissenting: The majority opinion has faithfully attempted to apply the applicable rules from State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007), to the facts before us. Despite this faithful attempt, I am compelled to dissent because I simply do not agree that a reasonable person would have felt free to go under the totality of the circumstances presented here. As the majority agrees, this is the ultimate test for a transition to a voluntary encounter, and we review the district court’s determination de novo. 284 Kan. at 776.
Relying solely on the officer’s testimony, the key aspect of the encounter occurred after a written warning had been issued for speeding and was related as follows:
“A. After I had given him all of his documents back, his driver’s license and whatever paperwork I had, I told him he was free to go.
“Q. Okay.
“A. He turned — or first of all, he turned to shake my hand and then told me that he was sorry, he was apologetic again. He turned and started walking away, and tiren I said, ‘By the way,’ and he turned around and looked at me.
“Q. After you asked him, ‘By the way,’ and he came back, what did you ask him?
“A. Asked him, “You don’t happen to have any illegal contraband in the vehicle, uh, any drugs, alcohol, weapons?’ and he said no, he did not.”
Remembering that tire determination whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter is fact driven, no list of factors is exhaustive or exclusive. 284 Kan. at 811. And among such unspecified factors is precisely what words are spoken by the officer. Here, unlike in Thompson, the officer did not first *943seek permission to ask more questions but simply stated, “By the way,” and proceeded with his questioning about the contents of the vehicle. The precise question before us is how a reasonable person would interpret the remark “By the way.” Does it signal a need to continue the prior detention or does it indicate a desire to spark up a brand new conversation?
“By die way” is “an incidental remark thrown in, and tending the same way as the discourse itself.” (Emphasis added.) Evan’s Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable 177 (Centenary ed. rev. 1981). I respectfully contend that when the phrase is used shortly after a previous conversation, it indicates an afterthought and its common meaning is “and another thing” or “also.” To a reasonable person, the use of the phrase after being told one is “free to go” would suggest a need to reengage the prior conversation for an afterthought. It is difficult for me to believe that a reasonable person under the totality of these circumstances would just walk back to his or her vehicle, blowing off the officer’s remark, “By the way.” Thus, I would hold under a totality of the circumstances that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter and drive away.
I recognize that we are bound by Thompson, but I do not read Thompson to indicate that we are to alter our case-by-case analysis in these circumstances. Indeed, Thompson emphasizes the fact-driven nature of the issue. See 284 Kan. at 811. Here, tire officer’s conduct, and specifically his words, signaled a command for further conversation that a reasonable person would interpret as an extension of the detention — -not an invitation for a brand new and voluntary conversation.
Finally, I take this opportunity to question the direction of our jurisprudence in this area. Starting from the proposition that respect for law enforcement is absolutely critical to our democracy, we should be mindful of how our caselaw may influence civil discourse between our citizens and law enforcement. Our law enforcement officers earn daily the appreciation and respect of all Kansans. An objective examination of the trend of recent decisions, however, might lead our citizenry to think that when encountered by a law enforcement official, they should say as little as possible, *944answer no questions until commanded to do so, decline any cooperation until commanded otherwise, and terminate the encounter even if walking away may seem quite rude and disrespectful.
I would argue that the defendant here demonstrated a healthy respect for law enforcement by his complete cooperation and, ultimately, by his offer of an apology and a handshake. His return for conversation with the officer based solely on the officer’s remark, “By the way,” was arguably a common courtesy and a further extension of his cooperation rather than ignoring or disrespecting tire officer’s authority. Based on the majority opinion, however, Murphy’s common courtesy led to a forfeiture of his fundamental constitutional rights. It is unfortunate that we have encouraged indifference or disrespect rather than cooperation, given the fundamental need for a respectful attitude toward our law enforcement officers.
With due respect to the majority, I would hold that Murphy’s consent to search of his vehicle was an illegal extension of his detention for speeding, and I would suppress the evidence resulting from the search.