A Kansas Court of Appeals panel has upheld a trial judge’s suppression in a DUI case agreeing that an officer had not developed reasonable suspicion to extend a seizure during a public welfare/safety check. Interestingly, the problem with the case was not the lack of reasonable suspicion but instead that the State had chosen the wrong Fourth Amendment argument. Under the facts, the State would probably have been successful had it simply argued that no seizure had ever occurred because the event was a consensual encounter.

Late one evening in 2025, Brian Piland was riding his motorcycle and had stopped on the edge of a roadway to answer the call to nature. A Trooper happened by, and noticed Piland then back on his motorcycle with the headlight and brake light on. The Trooper pulled around behind the motorcycle activating only the patrol car’s rear flashing lights and dashcam. When the Trooper exited his patrol car Piland turned off the motorcycle’s headlight, put the kickstand down, and got off the motorcycle. The Trooper asked if Piland was doing okay. Piland responded, “Yeah, I just pulled over to adjust my hat.” The Trooper pointed out a wet spot on the ground to which Piland said, “Yeah, that too.” Following that brief conversation, the Trooper detected alcohol on Piland’s breath, slurred speech, and watery/bloodshot eyes. A DUI investigation, arrest, and a jail cell followed.

Having earlier agreed with the defense that the event was a public welfare check, the State’s suppression hearing went badly. The trial judge (and later the Court of Appeals) agreed with Piland that any public welfare check authority the Trooper may have had to hold Piland and ask questions ended when Piland responded (to the question whether he was okay), “Yeah, I just pulled over to adjust my hat.” Because reasonable suspicion of DUI had not yet developed, the further detention of Piland was held improper.

Public Welfare Check:

“Kansas courts have recognized four types of law enforcement-citizen encounters. The first type is a voluntary encounter, which is not considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The second type is an investigatory detention or Terry stop [car stop], in which an officer may detain a person in a public place if the officer reasonably believes that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The third type of encounter is a public welfare or safety encounter, in which an officer may approach a person to check on his or her welfare when the officer can articulate specific facts showing a concern for the public’s safety. The fourth type of encounter between an officer and a citizen is an arrest.”

The Kansas Supreme Court first recognized the concept of a public welfare or safety encounter in 1992. “Safety reasons alone may justify the [encounter], if the safety reasons are based upon specific and articulable facts.” Authority for the encounter ends after the need for assistance ends. “A public welfare or safety encounter is not to be used for investigative purposes . . . Rather, [such encounters] must be divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute . . . To extend a public welfare check for further investigation, the officer must have reasonable suspicion the seized individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime or traffic infraction.”

In Piland’s case “ . . . we find nothing on the video to depict outward evidence that Piland’s welfare was endangered or that he was intoxicated before or at the time he indicated that he did not need assistance.”

Consensual Encounter:

On the other hand, things might well have ended differently had the State argued that the facts objectively supported that the Trooper and Piland were in a voluntary encounter and thus Piland was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Kansas Supreme Court has for generations held that “a voluntary or consensual encounter is the only type of encounter between citizens and law enforcement officers that does not implicate the protection of the Fourth Amendment . . . To distinguish consensual encounters from investigatory detentions, we must determine whether a reasonable person would feel free to go about his or her business and disregard the law enforcement officer. There are several objective factors that may be considered to determine whether there was a coercive show of authority such that the person would not feel free to disregard the officer. Those factors include the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical contact by the officer, or use of a commanding tone of voice.” None of that here, and, remember that the Trooper’s front emergency lights were off.

Even assuming that the Trooper subjectively wished to “check” on the already-stopped motorcycle, that does not mean that the objective facts do not better support a consensual encounter where the Trooper and Piland could converse until one or the other decided to leave, or reasonable suspicion of DUI was developed.

The Trooper did his job. The State dropped the ball.