Kansas Court of Appeals reverses Judge Trish Rose over suppression issue

TOPEKA, Kan. – The Kansas Court of Appeals overturned a decision by Judge Trish Rose in a possession of methamphetamine case.

She had granted a defense motion to suppress in the case involving Jonathan Wissing. The state then filed an interlocutory appeal.

On August 4, 2015, Patrol Sergeant Jake Graber saw a man riding a moped and recognized him from previous contacts as Jonathan Wissing. Believing he had active warrants, the officer stopped him.

The officer testified that he saw Wissing look inside a wallet and put it in his pocket. The officer placed Wissing under arrest for the outstanding warrants and handcuffed Wissing’s hands in front of his body.

Wissing asked the officer if he could go inside his house to tell his mother he was going to jail. The officer agreed and walked into the house with Wissing. While talking with his mother, the officer saw Wissing remove a wallet from his back pocket and place it on a dresser. The officer then retrieved Wissing’s wallet and asked him if his ID was in it. When Wissing responded that it was, the officer opened the wallet and found a small plastic bag containing a white crystal like substance that the officer believed to be methamphetamine. The officer seized the plastic bag.

After leaving the house, and in accordance with department policy, the officer conducted a pat-down search before placing Wissing in the patrol car. The officer took the wallet and the ID card to the jail. The State charged Wissing with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to introduce a controlled substance into the human body.

Wissing moved to suppress the evidence found in his wallet and Judge Trish Rose granted the motion.

But, the Court of Appeals ruled she erred in concluding that the wallet was out of Wissing’s control at the time of the search and because it was still within his reach, its search was within the scope of a lawful search and the evidence found should not have been suppressed.

They ordered the case back to District Court for further proceedings.