The Swain Law Office at Kansas Supreme Court.July 21st, 2017 at 5:12pm
Today the Kansas Supreme Court decided the case of Landrum v. Goering. In an incredibly well-reasoned decision, the court agreed with my analysis of the statutes and regulations that control how criminal defendants access state funding for experts and investigators to assist in their defense. Today's ruling overwhelmingly confirms that EACH and EVERY defendant in this state MUST be afforded this assistance.

Writ of Mandamus: granted.
70 13    View on Facebook
July 12th, 2017 at 3:00am
The hubris of the law enforcement community in this country is unimaginable! The police argued in this case that THEIR rights were violated when they were covertly videotaped while they ransacked a legal dispensary, threatened the disabled employee, and ATE EDIBLES. While in uniform. Paid with our tax dollars.

Fortunately, the Court of Appeals wasn't buying what this corrupt department was selling... #endthewarondrugs
33 7    View on Facebook
June 16th, 2017 at 7:40pm
Interesting case decided today by the Kansas Court of Appeals regarding the rules surrounding traffic stops that involve warrantless searches using drug sniffing dogs. Always remember to exercise your constitutional rights during traffic stops. NEVER consent to a search. NEVER speak to the police. And, most importantly, record all of your interactions with the police so you have an accurate depiction of the events.

In part, State v. Lewis states:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights demand that reasonable suspicion exists to stop a person.

Without probable cause to believe some other illegal activity has or is taking place, when law enforcement stops a person for a traffic infraction, the stop cannot last longer than the time reasonably required to conduct the stop. Incidences that constitute routine measures of a traffic stop include requesting a person's license and registration, running a computer check, and issuing a ticket.

When law enforcement uses a drug sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop, law enforcement officers must conduct the dog sniff in a manner that does not prolong the traffic stop.

Absent a reason to extend a routine traffic stop, when law enforcement officers have completed the traffic investigation, law enforcement officers must issue a ticket and let the person stopped go on his or her way. Otherwise, law enforcement officers unreasonably prolong a traffic stop.

Unless simultaneously engaging in activities related to the completion of the routine traffic stop, law enforcement officers cannot engage in activities that focus solely on preparing for a dog sniff during the stop. Such actions unreasonably prolong a traffic stop.

Under the circumstances where the traffic investigation had just been completed as the drug sniffing dog arrived, the law enforcement officers' actions of forcing the defendant to exit his car so the dog sniff could be conducted unreasonably prolonged the stop.
51 5    View on Facebook
April 21st, 2017 at 2:25am
I have suggested they reach out to you for help. You have done such great work in this area. The family is close friends of mine.
3 1    View on Facebook
April 17th, 2017 at 9:28pm
As a criminal defense attorney, the single best piece of advice I can give people is this: never (ever), under any circumstances, should you speak to the police. The Constitution guarantees that you CANNOT be forced to speak with the police. It is your absolute right. And you should exercise your right to silence at every turn when dealing with law enforcement. #swaintrain
38 4    View on Facebook