Kansas Supreme Court splits on constitutionality of drug-dog search at Wichita traffic stop

Yahoo

31-05-2025

Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall, second from left back row, wrote the majority opinion in a case questioning constitutionality of admitting evidence found by Wichita police after deploying a drug-sniffing dog. Justice Eric Rosen, from row left, wrote the dissenting opinion in the case raising questions about Fourth Amendment rights in searches and seizures. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from Supreme Court photograph)
TOPEKA — Wichita police officers Donald Bailey and Shawn Isham were watching a suspected drug house in 2020 when Gina Wilson parked a vehicle in the driveway, entered the residence, reappeared a few minutes later and drove away.
The officers followed Wilson before pulling her over on Greenfield Street, allegedly for twice failing to properly use a turn signal. Wilson denied committing the traffic infractions, but informed officers she didn't have a valid driver's license.
What happened next as Wilson stood on the curb with police officers was closely examined by the Sedgwick County District Court, Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court. In the end, Wilson lost her bid to exclude evidence of a drug offense and the state's highest court exposed a disagreement regarding constitutional rights of individuals subjected to searches and seizures by law enforcement.
On Friday, the Supreme Court's majority opinion from Justice Caleb Stegall affirmed the officers' compliance with the Fourth Amendment in terms of constitutionally conducting the traffic stop and deploying Oden, a drug-sniffing dog, to examine the exterior of Wilson's vehicle. Wilson had refused to consent to a search of her vehicle. However, the canine alerted to presence of illicit drugs. A subsequent examination of the car's interior by Wichita officers led to discovery of a packet of oxycodone pills.
Stegall concluded that because Wilson had no legal ability to drive the car away at conclusion of the traffic-related portion of the stop, officers didn't overstep their authority by nominally extending the encounter to allow for the dog sniff. Four minutes elapsed between when the officers completed her traffic citation and the time Oden alerted to presence of drugs.
'Even though she was not under arrest, Wilson argues that because she was not free to leave during these four minutes, she was unconstitutionally seized as an extension of the traffic stop,' Stegall said in the opinion. 'As such, she concludes that the search of the car was also unconstitutional and therefore the evidence gained from the unconstitutional search must be excluded.'
Stegall's majority opinion argued Wilson's suspended license created an unusual circumstance enabling officers to deploy the K-9 around her legally parked car that no one was attempting to move.
'Oden's alert provided probable cause, which allowed the officers to perform a warrantless search of the car … and the pills were properly admitted into evidence,' Stegall's opinion said. 'Therefore, officers do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections by performing a dog sniff of any vehicle that is legally parked in public.'
The dissent by Justice Eric Rosen, which was joined by Chief Justice Marla Luckert and Justice Melissa Standridge, said the drug evidence should have been suppressed because prolonging a traffic stop to complete the drug sniff without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment.
Rosen held the Wichita officers seized Wilson and the vehicle, extended the traffic stop, deployed Oden and discovered an envelope containing 30 oxycodone capsules in the car's console.
Rosen expressed frustration the majority opinion 'pronounces some new legal rules for which it provides no supporting authority.' He challenged the majority's declaration that a vehicle directed to the side of the road during a traffic stop shouldn't be characterized as seized by law enforcement.
'The majority likens this car to any car that was voluntarily parked in a public place,' Rosen wrote. 'From here, the majority announces that officers can perform a dog sniff on any car legally parked in public.'
In 2022, Wilson was convicted of driving while suspended and illegal possession of opiates.
She unsuccessfully argued in district court for suppression of drug evidence while alleging the officers impermissibly extended scope of the traffic stop to create a window for deployment of the K-9 unit.
The Court of Appeals sided with the district court in 2023 after concluding there was 'no evidence that the dog sniff meaningfully extended the duration of the original stop.' The divided Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's constitutional rights weren't violated.