Smurfing revisited

Carl F.A. Maughan won in State v. Maness, No. 96,024 (Kan. App. July 27, 2007)(unpublished), reversing a Sedgwick County conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine. Mr. Maness is the co-defendant to Glenda Glassock, who won her appeal several weeks ago. Here is my blog entry on that case, which includes a lot of the factual details of a practice called "smurfing." This COA panel agreed that officers violated the Fourth Amendment:

The separate purchase of cold pills by two individuals who return to an out-of-state vehicle, without more, does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. It would be difficult in a constitutional setting to find that facts insufficient to rise to reasonable suspicion for some persons can satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard simply because the individuals appear to be nonresidents.

The COA acknowledges the problem of "smurfing" but (properly) focuses on what information the officers had at the time of contact. The COA noted that the state "cites to no cases where courts have recognized one shopping trip was a sufficient pattern of activity as a basis for an investigative detention." That's good news for all of us who shop at stores for groceries, etc.

[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on August 23, 2007].