TOPEKA — An Ellis County case will be heard before the Kansas Supreme Court during its April 29 to May 1 session.
Cases are heard in the Supreme Court courtroom on the third floor of the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are broadcast live over the internet. To watch proceedings live online, follow the Watch Supreme Court Live! link from the court’s website at www.kscourts.org.
The case is summarized below:
Appeal No. 112,449: State of Kansas v. Dustin Dean Perkins
April 29
Ellis County: (Petition for Review) In 2012, Perkins was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, and a breath test was administered. Upon arrest, he was transported to the law enforcement center for testing. The parties stipulated to the facts and the district court held a bench trial. The court denied Perkins’ motion to suppress the evidence finding the consent exception to the search warrant requirement applied.
The court found Perkins guilty of driving under the influence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the suppression motion finding that although the consent exception was no longer available, the officer was permitted to conduct the breath test as a lawful search incident to arrest. The Court of Appeals also held the breath test was admissible because the officer, in good faith, acted in reliance on the implied consent statute before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The concurring judge would hold the search was admissible under the good faith exception and it was not necessary for the Court of Appeals to address the search incident to arrest.
Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals ignored Nece and Ryce by applying the search incident to arrest exception to a warrantless search; 2) the Supreme Court has rejected the application of the good faith exception to the unlawfully obtained test results; 3) the State can raise the search incident to arrest for the first time on appeal; 4) the good faith exception applies to the decisions of Nece and Ryce; and 5) the implied consent law and K.S.A. 8-1025 are unconstitutional.
Other cases with local ties are summarized below:
Case No. 120,744: In the Matter of Thomas Caleb Boone, Respondent
April 29
Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline: (Indefinite suspension) The ethical complaint in this case involves Boone’s representation of C.Z. against the Osawatomie State Hospital ending in the complaint being dismissed as a sanction against Boone. It also involves representation of a roofing company in a mechanic’s lien action resulting in a counterclaim award against the roofing company based on Boone’s actions.
The hearing panel recommends Boone’s license to practice law be indefinitely suspended. The panel acknowledged Boone had developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of probation. However, the panel believed placing Boone on probation is not in the best interests of the legal profession and Kansans. Boone has an extensive disciplinary record and spent nine years on probation for having violated many of the same rules he violated in this case. The panel stated any benefits to be gained by supervision have already been realized.
The disciplinary administrator recommends indefinite suspension. Boone recommended he be indefinitely suspended but that the suspension be suspended and he be placed on probation.
Appeal No. 118,914: In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Robert J. Sigler
April 29
Barton County: (Petition for Review) In 2007, Sigler was convicted of multiple sex crimes against a minor. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison. Just before he was scheduled to be released from prison, the State filed an action to have Sigler committed as a sexually violent predator. In July 2015, the district court found the evidence was insufficient to prove Sigler was likely to act out on his mental abnormality or personality disorder or had serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. The district court released Sigler on parole.
In November 2015, the State arrested Sigler after he violated his parole by opening Facebook accounts, giving a car ride to a minor, and having pornography on his computer. Before he was released from a 90-day prison sanction, the State refiled commitment proceedings. A jury found Sigler was a sexually violent predator, and he was involuntarily committed for care and treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed Sigler’s commitment on appeal.
Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the State, as a matter of law, carried its burden of establishing Sigler’s mental status and risk assessment materially changed between the 2013 and 2016 proceedings; 2) the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded Sigler’s right to due process was not violated when the district court failed to declare a mistrial sua sponte after a witness incorrectly testified Sigler’s previous civil commitment had been overturned on appeal; and 3) Sigler’s viewing of child pornography constitutes a material change in circumstances to justify a new involuntary commitment proceeding.