Court Opinion

ID: 9886658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:23:35.271402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:01.839184
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J., concurring:
I concur with the majority's result, i.e., affirming the district court's granting of the defense motion to suppress evidence.
I write separately to clarify that I do not join with the majority's unnecessary observation, to-wit: "We note, though, that we perceive no impermissible detention stemming from [Officer] Blake's travel plan inquiries." Op. at 461. That dictum does nothing to further the resolution of the question framed by the majority and it should have no precedential effect with respect to the propriety of travel plan inquiries. See, e.g., Law v. Law Company Building Assocs ., 295 Kan. 551, 564, 289 P.3d 1066 (2012) (" 'Nobody is bound by dictum ..."not even ... the court itself." ' ").