Fourth Amendment claim is fundamental

Shawn Minihan won in State v. Poulton, No. 95,353 (Kan. April 4, 2008), reversing and remanding for further hearings on Mr. Poulton's Fourth Amendment claims. There were two searches that were considered in this appeal. The COA had already reversed convictions stemming from one of the searches (here is my blog entry on that case). The KSC took up the issue of whether Mr. Poulton could attack the other search on appeal:

The Court of Appeals found, and at oral argument on review the State conceded, that the initial search conducted on November 20, 2003, was illegal. We agree and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the convictions based on the initial search.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Poulton's convictions based on the December 27, 2003, search. The Court of Appeals elected not to address Poulton's claim that the evidence seized during the December 27, 2003, search was the fruit of the poisonous tree because Poulton failed to raise the issue in the district court and failed to argue that any exceptional circumstances applied, thereby failing to preserve the issue for appeal.

Appellate courts can consider new issues on appeal in the following circumstances: (1) Cases in which the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and that is finally determinative of the case; (2) cases raising questions for the first time on appeal if consideration of those questions is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights; and (3) cases upholding the judgment of a trial court even though the trial court may have relied on the wrong ground or assigned a wrong reason for its decision.

At least one of the first two exceptions applies in the present case. Poulton and the State entered into a written stipulation of facts for the bench trial. The written stipulation specifically renewed Poulton's objection to the denial of his motions to suppress and preserved the issue of suppression for appeal. Because there are no factual disputes, the question of whether the evidence stemming from the second search should have been suppressed is a purely legal question. The first exception may apply if it is determined that the evidence should have been suppressed and the suppression finally disposes of the case. The second exception applies because the suppression of evidence based on the violation of Poulton's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution implicates a fundamental right.

So the Court reached the issue for the first time on appeal and remanded for consideration of whether the second search was the fruit of the first search. That's a good holding in light of the posture of the case.