The COA held that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's conclusion that the "public safety stop" was a pretext for an investigatory detention:
Our review of the record impels us to agree with the trial court. We too are not convinced the officer made a public safety stop in a case where the first words from the police officer were "Are you drunk?
The COA also relied on State v. Marx (blogged about here) to conclude that, "even if [the officer] had a suspicion of a K.S.A. 8-1522(a) violation, Jimeson's brief lane breach would not have been enough to validate a traffic stop."
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on December 17, 2009.]
No comments:
Post a Comment