State v. Powell
325 P.3d 1162, 299 Kan. 690, 2014 WL 2557127 (2014)
Rule of Law:
The United States v. Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply when an officer's reliance on a facially invalid search warrant is objectively unreasonable due to an affidavit's lack of probable cause, specifically when it fails to establish a nexus between the evidence sought and the crime, and relies primarily on uncorroborated, unreliable anonymous tips.
Facts:
- In July 2007, a Greenwood County Sheriff's Department patrol car was stolen from a locked compound.
- The stolen patrol car was discovered wrecked in a ditch the following morning.
- Officers collected hair and tissue samples from the cracked windshield, hair from the rearview mirror, and blood from the vehicle’s interior.
- In September 2007, officers sought a search warrant for 'samples of [Powell’s] blood, hair, and oral swabs as well as fingerprint samples.'
- The affidavit supporting the search warrant summarized a police interview with Ryan Powell, where he denied involvement, initially agreed to a DNA test to prove innocence but failed to report, and made suspicious statements regarding his memory of the theft date and conflicting accounts of how he learned of the crime.
- The affidavit also mentioned three anonymous phone calls, each claiming Ryan Powell was involved in the theft, but without clear indicia of reliability, basis of knowledge, or corroboration.
Procedural Posture:
- A district court judge approved and signed a search warrant for Ryan Powell's biological samples.
- Hair, oral swabs, and blood were collected from Powell pursuant to the warrant.
- The State charged Powell with felony theft and felony criminal damage to property.
- Powell filed a motion to suppress the biological material in the district court, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the Leon good-faith exception did not apply.
- After a hearing, the district court judge who signed the warrant determined it lacked probable cause but admitted the evidence under the Leon good-faith exception.
- Powell stipulated that his DNA profile from the samples would match the biological material found in the stolen patrol car and agreed to a bench trial on stipulated facts.
- The district court found Powell guilty of felony theft and felony criminal damage to property and sentenced him to probation and restitution.
- Powell appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, arguing the good-faith exception was inapplicable.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting Powell's arguments.
- Powell petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence obtained through a search warrant, which a court later deems to lack probable cause, admissible under the Leon good-faith exception when the supporting affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the biological evidence sought and the crime and relied primarily on uncorroborated anonymous tips?
Opinions:
Majority - Biles, J.
No, evidence obtained through this search warrant is not admissible under the Leon good-faith exception. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the district court erred by not suppressing the evidence because it was objectively unreasonable for the officer to rely on the warrant, thus falling within the 'bare-bones' exception to Leon. The Court identified two critical deficiencies in the affidavit. First, it failed to establish a nexus between the biological material sought from Powell and the stolen patrol car, as it did not state that DNA evidence had been recovered from the vehicle that could be compared to Powell's samples. This omission, especially for an intrusive bodily search, was deemed a glaring, constitutionally fatal deficiency (Groh v. Ramirez, Schmerber v. California). The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' reasoning that such a nexus was implied. Second, the affidavit relied primarily on three anonymous tips that lacked any indicia of reliability, basis of knowledge, or meaningful corroboration, failing to meet established precedent for anonymous sources (Illinois v. Gates, State v. Hicks, State v. Hensley). Powell's interview statements, characterized as only 'slightly suspicious,' did not provide sufficient probable cause. The Court concluded that applying the exclusionary rule would serve its purpose of deterring future Fourth Amendment violations by signaling to officers that they cannot ignore well-settled law regarding anonymous tips and must avoid prematurely pursuing search warrants.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Leon good-faith exception in Kansas, particularly regarding 'bare-bones' affidavits that seek intrusive bodily evidence. It reinforces the importance of establishing a clear nexus between the evidence sought and the crime, especially for biological samples, and reiterates the stringent requirements for relying on anonymous tips to establish probable cause. Future cases will likely face a higher bar for warrant affidavits, compelling law enforcement to conduct thorough investigations and provide robust justifications, thus strengthening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
