State v. Glover

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court vacated its judgment reversing the judgment of the court of appeals, which reversed the district court's ruling granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, holding that the district court's judgment is affirmed in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

The district court determined that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when he stopped the vehicle, making the seizure of Defendant a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals. The United States Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed, holding that the investigative traffic stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated its judgment reversing the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 116,446 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. CHARLES GLOVER, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Consistent with Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1183, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2020), an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle's license plate and learning that the registered owner's driver's license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle. Here, the stipulated facts reveal no information known by the deputy sufficient to rebut that reasonable inference. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 54 Kan. App. 2d 377, 400 P.3d 182 (2017). Appeal from Douglas District Court; PAULA B. MARTIN, judge. Opinion on remand filed June 12, 2020. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions. Andrew Bauch, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and John Grobmyer, legal intern, Charles E. Branson, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellant. Elbridge Griffy IV, of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee. 1 The opinion of the court was delivered by LUCKERT, C.J.: This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion in Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1183, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2020). The factual and procedural details of the case are fully set out in our opinion in State v. Glover, 308 Kan. 590, 422 P.3d 64 (2018), and will not be restated here. We affirmed the district court's ruling granting Charles Glover's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The district court determined the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when he stopped the truck, making the seizure a violation of Glover's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Glover, 54 Kan. App. 2d 377, 400 P.3d 182 (2017). We agreed with the district court and reversed the Court of Appeals. The State filed a writ of certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted. It then held an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle's license plate and learning that the registered owner's driver's license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle. 140 S. Ct. at 1187-91. The Court also held the stipulated facts revealed no information known by the deputy sufficient to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover drove the truck. 140 S. Ct. at 1191. The Court reversed and remanded our judgment in Kansas v. Glover. As a result, this case is again before us. In accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court, we vacate our judgment reversing the Court of Appeals. and affirming the district court. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court with directions. 3

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.