A judge from the U.S. District Court has instructed the Kansas Highway Patrol to compensate the ACLU of Kansas and a law firm with $2.3 million in legal fees. The payment is to be made in relation to a case where the plaintiffs successfully contested the constitutionality of the KHP’s “Kansas two-step” drug-enforcement policy. In response to the ruling, KHP Col. Erik Smith appealed the decision, arguing that the agency’s methods of gaining entry to vehicles during traffic stops did not violate the U.S. Constitution. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)
A federal judge has ruled that the Kansas Highway Patrol must pay $2.34 million in attorney fees and other expenses after a lawsuit successfully challenged the agency’s practice of detaining and searching motorists without reasonable suspicion.
In 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, along with the national ACLU and the Spencer Fane law firm, took legal action to challenge the policy implemented by the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) regarding traffic stops. They argued that the KHP’s policy violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by allowing troopers to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures of vehicles in an effort to combat drug trafficking on major highways.
Vratil granted the financial award on Friday, in response to a request made by the plaintiffs in March. The plaintiffs sought compensation of over $3 million from KHP.
“We are thrilled that the district court acknowledged the immense effort and dedication our team of attorneys and legal staff invested in this highly demanding case over the last four years,” expressed Esmie Tseng, spokesperson for ACLU of Kansas. “Receiving such an award not only validates our clients’ pursuit of justice but also serves as a strong message to government agencies that choose to ignore the fundamental civil rights protections enshrined in the constitution.”
The Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) used a two-step method to conduct traffic stops. First, troopers would pull over a motorist for a suspected traffic violation. After completing the initial interaction, the troopers would take a few steps away from the vehicle. They would then turn around and ask the driver if they would be willing to answer unrelated questions voluntarily. These questions aimed to gather information that could potentially lead to a roadside search of the vehicle. KHP attorneys defended this approach, stating that detaining motorists using the “two-step” maneuver was a legal and appropriate measure in the fight against illegal drugs.
U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn Vratil issued a permanent injunction in November. The injunction forbids the agency from relying on policies that unconstitutionally transformed basic traffic stops into lengthy vehicle searches by drug-sniffing dogs. The verdicts returned against KHP in jury trials led to this decision.
Vratil confidently stated that this particular war is relatively easy compared to others. He emphasized that it is a straightforward and cost-effective battle, but for motorists, it is an unfair fight. The core of this war lies in numbers: if enough cars are stopped, it is inevitable to uncover drugs. Vratil also questioned the significance of trampling on a few constitutional rights during this process.
According to the federal judge, the Kansas Highway Patrol’s (KHP) two-step theory on detaining motorists lacks a proper understanding of reasonable suspicion. Moreover, the judge stated that this theory is applied without obtaining the “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary consent” of the individuals being targeted by troopers.
KHP was instructed by Vratil to notify drivers when a traffic stop had concluded and inform them that they were free to leave without having to answer any questions unrelated to the traffic violation. Troopers were directed to inform drivers that they had the right to withdraw consent for a vehicle search at any point in time.
The court’s injunction has put KHP under its supervision for a period of two to four years. As part of this order, troopers are now required to receive instruction on distinguishing between reasonable suspicion and mere speculation when conducting traffic stops. Additionally, there are now specific guidelines in place for documenting traffic stops, detaining motorists, and obtaining permission to search a vehicle.
The 10th Circuit of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals received an appeal from KHP Col. Erik Smith, challenging Vratil’s order. The appeal aims to protect the “two-step” approach used by troopers to access vehicles suspected of carrying illegal drugs. As a response, the Court of Appeals has temporarily suspended the enforcement of Vratil’s injunction that specifically applies to KHP’s method of conducting traffic stops.
In July, when Vratil declared the unconstitutionality of KHP policy, the superintendent of the agency stated that KHP would strive to uphold constitutional rights and abide by the law in its enforcement operations, while fulfilling its mission of providing service, courtesy, and protection.
Candice Breshears, the spokesperson for KHP, did not provide an immediate response when asked for a comment on the financial judgment.
ACLU’s plaintiff, Joshua Bosire, received a $40,000 settlement in 2023 due to the misconduct of KHP troopers during a traffic stop in 2019.
According to former legal director of ACLU of Kansas, Sharon Brett, these practices transform a minor offense like a traffic violation into a humiliating and protracted roadside detention. She expresses concern about giving police the authority to conduct pretextual stops, treating individuals as drug traffickers, and using weak justifications to prolong traffic stops in order to search their vehicles. Brett argues that this turns a straightforward scenario of issuing a ticket into a complex and distressing ordeal for the individuals involved.
The Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) has been ordered to pay $2.3 million to the plaintiffs in a recent court case regarding the unconstitutional “Kansas two-step” traffic policy. This ruling highlights the violation of individuals’ rights and the need for accountability within law enforcement agencies. The decision serves as a reminder that justice will be served when unconstitutional practices are challenged and rectified.
