Donald E. Anderson, II. won in State v. Dannebohm, No. 116,981 (Kan. App. August 24, 2028), affirming Judge Svaty's suppression order in a Barton County drug prosection. The appeal was on remand from the KSC after the COA had initially reversed finding a lack of standing. But the KSC reversed the COA holding that Mr. Dannebohm was a social guest and, therefore, had standing (blogged about here). On the merits, the state's primary argument was the apartment's owner had consented to the search. On remand, the COA held that the state failed to prove consent:
Tracy testified that the officers asked her if they could search her apartment for the express purpose of finding Dannebohm, and she consented to this search. Tracy stated, however, that she never gave consent for the officers to use a K-9 to search for drugs. [An officer] testified that Tracy stated the officers would find drugs in the apartment, and this indicated to the officer that Tracy was giving consent to such a search. Tracy contests that she ever made such a statement. Nevertheless, . . . the K-9 officer, testified that Tracy had not given consent to the K-9 sniff of her apartment. There are sufficient facts to support the district court's conclusion that the consent given was to search for Dannebohm, the person, and not for drugs.
The only evidence in the record on appeal reflected that the search warrant obtained by officers was based on the illegal K-9 search. As a result, the COA held that the state had failed to provide a record on appeals sufficient to show that Judge Svaty's suppression order was erroneous and affirmed.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on October 1, 2018.]
No comments:
Post a Comment