View Case 
Cited Cases 
Citing Cases
Comment (0) 
STATE v. ORAM STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v.
MISTY A. ORAM, Appellant.
No. 104,163.
Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 2, 2011. Charles D. Lamb, of Kansas City, for appellant.Shawn M. Boyd, assistant district attorney, Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.Before GREENE, C.J., GREEN, J. and LARSON, S.J.
GREEN, J.Misty Oram appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana after a bench trial was held on stipulated facts. On appeal, Oram raises two arguments. First, Oram argues that the trial court correctly concluded that the search violated Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009), but she argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. We determine that the trial court correctly held that the search violated Gant. Nevertheless, we determine that because the search was not conducted in an objectively reasonable manner, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. Second, Oram contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to suppress her confession regarding evidence that was seized in the illegal search. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court with directions to vacate Oram's conviction.On October 2, 2008, at approximately 10:20 p.m., sheriff's deputies in Wyandotte County, Kansas, conducted a routine traffic stop that eventually resulted in the arrests of the driver Oram (for obstruction) and the passenger Emanuel Butler (for an outstanding warrant). The deputies handcuffed both Oram and Butler and placed them in the back seat of separate patrol cars. The deputies then searched the car and found a white paper bag behind the driver's seat which they believed to be marijuana. It was later determined that the substance in the white paper bag was marijuana.After finding the marijuana, Oram was read her Miranda rights which she later waived and agreed to answer questions. Oram confirmed that the marijuana in the car was hers and admitted that she uses it to medicate herself. Oram was then arrested for possession of marijuana.Oram filed three separate motions to suppress. In the first motion, Oram argued that her arrest was unlawful and that the later search was unlawful because it took place while she was secured and away from the vicinity of her car. After hearing evidence, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion. The trial court determined that the deputies had probable cause to arrest Oram for obstruction. The trial court then determined that although the State contends that the search was an inventory search, it was clearly a search incident to arrest. The trial court further held that the search incident to arrest violated the rule set out in Gant but did not explain which factors were violated. After determining that the search was unlawful, the trial court determined that because the deputies acted in good-faith reliance on the law when the search was made, the evidence would not be suppressed.Oram filed two later motions where she argued that her confession should be suppressed because it was the fruit of an illegal search. The trial court again denied her motions. The trial court held that although the search violated Gant, the search was done in good faith and, as a result, the statement was voluntary.After her motions were denied, Oram waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts. The trial court found Oram guilty of possession of marijuana. Oram was sentenced to 12 months' probation.
via leagle.com
