Court Opinion

ID: 9781927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:38:42.716909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:41.892155
License: Public Domain

Greene, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ application of K.S.A. 22-2501; I would conclude that the vehicle here was no longer “within [Davison’s] immediate presence” when the search was'conducted. I would reverse the district court and direct that the fruits of the search be suppressed..
Before the search of Davison’s vehicle was initiated, Davison was searched, handcuffed, and placed in the backseat of the patrol car. As she was seated in the patrol car, Officer Smith asked her if there was someone who could come and get the car, and Davison provided the name and address of a friend. Officer Smith then contacted the friend, who agreed to come and get the car. The officer testified that it was never his intention to impound the vehicle. These conversations were apparently complete before the second officer arrived at the scene, confirmed that Davison was under arrest, and got into Davison’s vehicle to begin a “partial search.” After finding an item of contraband, the second officer conferred with Officer Smith, who then assisted in completing a more thorough search that resulted in additional items of contraband.
I would not struggle with the question whether to apply K.S.A. 22-2501 or the standards announced by the United State Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768, 101 S. Ct. 2860 (1981). If the legislature had been persuaded that we needed to simply apply the standards of Belton in Kansas, it had the opportunity to repeal K.S.A. 22-2501. Instead, it chose not to do so, adhering to an amended statutory standard. As noted by our Supreme Court in State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16, 910 P.2d 180 (1996), where the statute sets forth the permissible circumstances and purposes under which a search incident to arrest can be made, it “may be more restrictive than prevailing case law on the Fourth *152Amendment would permit, but this does not alter the plain language of the statute.” 259 Kan. at 22. The statute applies here, and we should not confuse its application with standards in Belton or its progeny.
The amended statute allows a search of “the area within [the arrested] person’s immediate presence.” K.S.A. 22-2501. As recognized by the majority, Davison has not challenged the purpose of the search but has challenged the permissible physical scope of the search, arguing that the vehicle was no longer “within [Davison’s] immediate presence” when the search was initiated.
Our initial task should be a careful .analysis of Kansas case law construing K.S.A. 22-2501 for guidance in construing and applying the phrase “the area within [the arrested] person’s immediate presence.” With due respect to my colleagues, I believe we should take care to distinguish prior cases where the Belton standards rather than the statutory language guided the analysis. Having determined that the statute applies here, I contend we need not be guided by the federal constitutional standards articulated in Belton or its progeny.
In its analysis of the paramount issue, the majority first cites and relies on State v. Tygart, 215 Kan. 409, 524 P.2d 753 (1974). I would conclude that Tygart is not very helpful here because it upheld a search on the combined grounds of incident to arrest and independent probable cause. Moreover, the six-prong test set forth by the court in Tygart was not clearly limited to the statutoiy standard; the court clearly relied on both state and federal law to promulgate a more “general” test for an entirely different criteria, i.e., “within the arrestee’s immediate control.” (Emphasis added.) 215 Kan. at 412. Obviously, “control” is not necessarily synonymous with “presence,” and the test should have little if any application in a pure statutory application. Finally, the circumstances present in Tygart have no similarity whatsoever to the facts before us here.
The majority next discusses State v. White, 230 Kan. 679, 640 P.2d 1231 (1982), and State v. Deskins, 234 Kan. 529, 531, 673 P.2d 1174 (1983), but concedes that K.S.A. 22-2501 was not the basis for these decisions, nor was it discussed by the court in upholding the respective searches in these cases. I would not rely on *153these cases in determining how we have traditionally construed or applied K.S.A. 22-2501.
The majority then discusses State v. Press, 9 Kan. App. 2d 589, 685 P.2d 887, rev. denied 236 Kan. 877 (1984), State v. Van Wey, 18 Kan. App. 2d 260, 850 P.2d 283 (1993), State v. McClain, 258 Kan. 176, 899 P.2d 993 (1995), State v. Box, 28 Kan. App. 2d 401, 17 P.3d 386 (2000), and State v. Vandevelde, 36 Kan. App. 2d 262, 138 P.3d 771 (2006). Notably, although the court in Press cites and quotes K.S.A. 22-2501, none of these cases actually construes or applies the statutory language at issue here, and instead they rely on and apply either Belton, White, Tygart, or Deskins. I do not believe our appellate courts have expressly held that we should construe the statutory phrase “area within [the arrestee’s] immediate presence” with any standard routinely construed or applied in a federal constitutional analysis. Again, I contend that our analysis should diligently determine whether our appellate courts have previously focused upon and applied the phrase “within such [arrested] person’s immediate presence” and that we should not confuse case law where the federal standards rather than Kansas law were applied.
My analysis has shown that we have no guidance from prior case law on the precise issue framed by this appeal, i.e., whether Davison’s vehicle remained in the “area within [Davison’s] immediate presence” after she had been removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and placed in the back of the patrol car and arrangements had been made for a friend to take possession of and remove the vehicle.
In the absence of guiding precedent, I would look anew at the statutory phrase and construe it applying well-known standards. In doing so, we should examine and interpret the terms “immediate” and “presence.” The words of a statute are the main source for determining a legislative purpose. In re Marriage of Williams, 32 Kan. App. 2d 842, 851, 90 P.3d 365 (2004). In construing statutes, the legislature is presumed to have consciously chosen the words used with an understanding of their ordinary and common meanings. International Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Kansas City, 264 Kan. 17, 31, 954 P.2d 1079 (1998). Ordinary words are given their *154ordinary meanings. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Kline, 283 Kan. 64, 77, 150 P.3d 892 (2007). When words are used in an ordinary manner, a dictionary definition may be a useful guide to meaning. See State ex rel. Topeka Police Dept. v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 281 Kan. 819, 827, 133 P.3d 91 (2006).
Turning first to the ordinary meaning of “immediate,” we note that the common dictionary definitions of the term include “being without die intervention of another object, cause, or agency” and “directly touching or concerning a person or thing.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 601 (1991). Black’s Law Dictionary 764 (8th ed. 2004) includes the definitions “not separated by other persons or things” and “having a direct impact; without an intervening agency.” Noting that our. statute employs this term as an adjective to modify the term “presence,” we must determine not only whether the area searched was within the “presence” of Davison, but whether it was within her “direct” or “unseparated” presence, or otherwise a presence without intervention of other objects or causes.
The common dictionary definitions of the term “presence” include “the part of space within one’s immediate vicinity.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 930 (1991). Black’s Law Dictionary 1221 (8th ed. 2004) includes as definitions “[cjlose physical proximity coupled with awareness.” Accordingly, we must examine whether the area searched was within the direct vicinity of Davison — within close physical proximity and awareness.
Applying these definitions, I would hold that the statutory phrase “the area within [tire arrestee’s] immediate presence” means the area must be within the direct, unseparated vicinity of the arrestee, with no intervention preventing direct access to and awareness by the person. Such an area would clearly not include the vehicle under the circumstances in this case; Davison had indeed been separated from her vehicle and was no longer within its direct vicinity. Moreover, at least two interventions had occurred preventing her continued direct access: (1) she had been arrested, hand*155cuffed, and placed in a patrol car; and (2) her car had been tendered to a friend who was on the way to take possession. I would faithfully construe the terminology within K.S.A. 22-2501 and conclude the search of the vehicle was not within the scope intended by the statute, thus requiring the fruits of the search to be suppressed.
This analysis would be definitive on the issue presented here, but I must also note that my construction and application of the statute is entirely consistent with well-established principles of inventory searches, precluding random searches of vehicles upon arrest without some indicia of reasonableness. See State v. Shelton, 278 Kan. 287, 93 P.3d 1200 (2004). Shelton is the most recent in a long line of Kansas cases that have established guidelines for vehicle searches, usually after the arrest of the driver or other occupants, to prevent “ ‘general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.’ ’’ 278 Kan. at 1209 (quoting Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632 [1990]). This entire line of cases is at risk if not effectively abolished by tire majority’s view in this case. Why bother with reasonableness or lawful impoundment, or any other of myriad issues that generally arise in the inventory search cases? If the arrestee has been removed from a vehicle, that vehicle is fair game for comprehensive search without any further showing whatsoever. I simply cannot square the majority’s view with our long line of inventory search cases — all of which are based on sound constitutional principles.
Additionally, the confusion reflected in our case law since the initial enactment of K.S.A. 22-2501—particularly the persistent confounding of Belton principles with our statutory language— merits attention and abatement. We must be vigilant to distinguish the rationale applied by the United States Supreme Court in a federal constitutional analysis from the language in our own statutes and constitution. Here, where our legislature has long ago decided that searches incident to arrest should be governed by our own statute, we should refrain from determining legislative intent or general application of our statute by any guidance from the federal courts. Our Kansas citizens have come to expect their liberties to be guarded pursuant to long-standing principles an*156nounced by our legislature and appellate courts, and we should not depart from that expectation unless absolutely required to do so by the Supremacy Clause.
Finally, I must demonstrate what a sad day it is for the Fourth Amendment when a search of this nature is permitted. “If there is no controlling statute or exception to the warrant requirement that permits law enforcement to enter the vehicle [under these circumstances], then the defendant retains a limited expectation of privacy in its interior.” Shelton, 278 Kan. at 1210 (Beier, J., concurring). Here, Davison was stopped for failure to dim her lights, arrested for an outstanding traffic warrant, removed and securely stowed in the squad car, and without any further showing whatsoever, her car was subjected to a comprehensive search by two law officers. There was no reason to expect contraband based on the crime of arrest, there was no fear of officer safety, and there was no other reasonable basis whatsoever to search the vehicle. I would simply argue this is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee people are to be “secure” from unreasonable searches.
I would reverse the district court, suppress the fruits of the search of Davison’s vehicle, and remand for further proceedings.