Friday, March 16, 2007

Sometimes it's what they don't say

Charles O'Hara won in State v. Landis, No. 95,466 (March 16, 2007), reversing a McPherson County possession with intent to sell within 1000' of a school conviction. The COA held that the affidavit, based on accomplice hearsay, was insufficient. The fact that the police deliberately omitted material facts didn't help the state's cause:
We determine that the affidavit, which was based solely on hearsay statements from a person who was a participant in the crime under investigation, failed to establish probable cause to search Landis' residence. Moreover, consideration of the information deliberately omitted from the affidavit further magnifies the lack of probable cause in the affidavit. Because there was not probable cause to issue the search warrant, the evidence obtained from the search of Landis' residence should have been suppressed.
I think this is a good case, at least giving some credence to the fact that cops should not intentionally omit material facts from search warrant affidavits.

[Update: the state filed a PR on April 16, 2007.]

[Further update: the KSC denied the PR and the mandate issue on October 1, 2007.]

No comments: