The State bears the burden to demonstrate a warrantless search was lawful. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. ––––, 326 P.3d 1039, 1043 (2014). Searches Incident to Arrest: 1969 to Present
291 Kan. at 507-08, 242 P.3d 1186 (Johnson J., dissenting). Then, in State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), this court declined to extend Daniel because the search in Pettay exceeded the scope authorized by the statute. A concurring opinion in Pettay reiterated the objection to the Daniel court's expansion of the good-faith exception and disagreed with the concept that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct.
291 Kan. at 507-08, 242 P.3d 1186 (Johnson J., dissenting). Then, in State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), this court declined to extend Daniel because the search in Pettay exceeded the scope authorized by the statute. A concurring opinion in Pettay reiterated the objection to the Daniel court's expansion of the good-faith exception and disagreed with the concept that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct.
291 Kan. at 500, 242 P.3d 1186. Finally, Schmidt points to State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), as an example of a case where the Kansas Supreme Court declined to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in order to uphold a vehicle search incident to the defendant's arrest pursuant to K.S.A. 22–2501, after the statute was subsequently held to be unconstitutional. But Pettay is distinguishable because the law enforcement officer in that case searched the vehicle after the driver had been handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car.
Generally, when police officers obtain evidence in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence may not be used at trial—this is known as the exclusionary rule. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 768–69, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). The exclusionary rule was designed by the courts to deter police from violating a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
Consistent with that conclusion, the district court implemented its own warning by advising it would remind testifying PVPD officers of their privilege against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this court has observed, suppression of evidence "is a deterrent measure," not a personal right. State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 769, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). "Therefore, its application is ‘ "restricted to those situations in which its remedial purpose is effectively advanced.
Since Anderson was decided, this court has repeatedly ruled that K.S.A. 22–2501 governs searches incident to arrest and sets forth the “permissible circumstances, purposes, and scope” of such searches. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, Syl. ¶ 4, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) ; State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, Syl. ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 323 (2013) ; State v. Dennis, 297 Kan. 229, Syl. ¶ 5, 300 P.3d 81 (2013) ; State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391, 99 P.3d 1108 (2004). While correct, this recitation of the interplay between K.S.A. 22–2501 and the Fourth Amendment is incomplete.
The district court's factual findings on a motion to suppress are reviewed for substantial competent evidence, but the legal conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are reviewed de novo. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 768, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (citing State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 495, 242 P.3d 1186 [2010], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2114, 179 L.Ed.2d 908 [2011] ). Analysis
But I question the notion that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. It also functions to preserve the integrity of the judicial system; to prevent the government from profiting from the fruits of lawless behavior, whether intentional or inadvertent; and to preserve the rights of citizens guaranteed by our founding fathers in the Bill of Rights. Cf. State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772-73, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (discussing other purposes served by the exclusionary rule). In Webb , Justice Johnson quoted Thomas Jefferson, to-wit: " ‘[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.’
This exclusionary rule "safeguards Fourth Amendment rights by preventing the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings against victims of illegal searches." State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 768, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). For the exclusionary rule to apply, there first must be a constitutional violation.