Court Opinion

ID: 9846155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:35:51.353253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.445292
License: Public Domain

Allegrucci, J.,
dissenting: K.S.A. 22-2402(1) provides that an officer may stop a person in public whom such officer “reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand . . . the name [and] address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect’s action.” I disagree with the majority that the private citizen’s report in the present case was *419sufficient to support a stop under K.S.A. 22-2402(1). However, even if it was sufficient, the officer never asked Toothman for identification or an explanation until after he was on the ground and handcuffed. The officer did not have reason to suspect that the vehicle was stolen and, when finally asked, Toothman explained the circumstances for his driving the car and the reason for the exposed wires, all of which was true and was confirmed within a short time by the arrival of the owner of the vehicle at the scene.
The majority, in my judgment, continues to approve police searches and seizures which violate both our statutes and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The district court’s findings that the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was stolen is supported by substantial competent evidence, and the district court’s granting of the motion to suppress the evidence should be affirmed.
Lockett, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.