Automated Summary
Key Facts
Jenni J. Lee appealed her first-offense DUI conviction from Leawood Municipal Court to Johnson County District Court. On February 3, 2015, a concerned citizen's tip about an erratic silver Mercedes driver led to Lee's arrest after police found her disoriented in the driver's seat with a dog on her lap. Officer Andrew Maxwell conducted field sobriety tests which Lee failed, exhibiting seven out of eight clues of impairment on the walk-and-turn test and two out of four clues on the one-leg-stand test. Lee refused a preliminary breath test at the scene and also refused an evidentiary Intoxilyzer breath test at the police station. The district court denied Lee's motion to suppress and motion for judgment of acquittal, finding she was guilty of DUI and refusing a preliminary screening test, and sentenced her to 30 days in jail with 12 months' probation. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.
Issues
- The appellant argues the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress, contending her initial seizure and continued detention after Officer Woollen's contact were unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court analyzed whether the citizen's tip provided sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion and whether continued detention was justified given the totality of circumstances.
- The appellant contends the district court erred by denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing the City failed to introduce the ordinance into evidence. The court addressed whether the district court was required to explicitly take judicial notice of the municipal ordinance and whether Lee properly preserved this argument for appeal.
- Lee claims the district court improperly considered her refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test as evidence of her guilt for the crime of driving under the influence. The court examined whether the PBT refusal was admissible evidence and whether it affected the sufficiency of evidence for the DUI conviction.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the district court's judgment in this DUI appeal. The court found no error in denying Lee's motion to suppress, determining the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain her based on the citizen's tip and subsequent observations. The court also rejected Lee's argument that her preliminary breath test refusal should not be considered as evidence of DUI guilt, and denied her motion for judgment of acquittal.
Remedies
The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, which sentenced the appellant to 30 days in jail with 12 months' probation following a 48-hour minimum mandatory jail term, and ordered payment of $950 in fines.
Monetary Damages
950.00
Legal Principles
- Law enforcement officers may stop any person in a public place based upon specific and articulable facts raising reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, requiring a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity.
- District courts may take judicial notice of duly enacted ordinances and duly published regulations of governmental subdivisions. Issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised on appeal unless exceptions apply.
- A defendant's refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) is admissible as evidence of guilt for DUI in bench trials, though in jury trials it may require limiting instructions. The refusal can be considered as evidence that the person consumed alcohol to the extent they were over the legal limit.
- In criminal cases, appellate courts review sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court does not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make determinations regarding witness credibility.
Precedent Name
- Terry v. Ohio
- State v. Kelly
- State v. Crawford
- State v. Poulton
- State v. Hardesty
- State v. Rosa
Cited Statute
- K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1001(k)(7)
- K.S.A. 22-2402(1)
- K.S.A. 60-409(b)(1)
- K.S.A. 60-411
Judge Name
- Appellate Justice
- Presiding Judge
Passage Text
- Lee argues that, unlike in Hardesty and Wahweotten, the district court's improper consideration of the PBT refusal affected the outcome of her case because the remaining evidence of guilt was not overwhelming. Lee's argument fails for multiple reasons. First, Hardesty and Wahweotten are distinguishable in that both cases were tried to a jury. Lee's case was heard at a bench trial before the district court, so we are not concerned with issues relating to improperly admitted evidence or whether a limiting instruction should have been given.
- The district court judge stated: 'So the Court is going to find that the officer had sufficient articulable suspicion, that at least some sort of investigation needed to proceed and that as the investigation did proceed, then he developed sufficient evidence to become reasonably suspicious of a—of the violations of the law and then developed that even further through the field sobriety testing, all the other interviews that took place.' The Court is going to deny the motion to suppress and consider the evidence that was presented here at trial.
- Issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised on appeal. Although exceptions to this general rule exist, parties seeking to raise an issue for the first time on appeal must assert the exceptions. Litigants who fail to comply with this rule risk a ruling that the issue is improperly briefed, and the issue will be deemed waived or abandoned. Lee does not acknowledge her failure to raise this argument below or otherwise explain why an exception to the general rule should apply to justify our review of the issue. Lee's failure to explain why an exception applies is fatal to her appeal.