Kansas Court of Appeals to hear oral argument at Kansas State University

TOPEKA—A three-judge panel from the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral argument September 17 at Kansas State University in Manhattan and the public is invited to attend.

On Tuesday, September 17, the panel will hear three cases in the Purple Masque Theater on the Kansas State University campus.

Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, Judges Kathryn Gardner, and Amy Fellows Cline will hear oral arguments starting at 9:30 a.m. Afterward, the judges will be available to answer questions from students, faculty, and the public about the judicial branch, court procedures, the role of judges, the legal profession, and other related matters.

"The Court of Appeals is a traveling court, so we hear cases across the state," Arnold-Burger said. "In September, however, we make a point of sitting at various high schools, colleges, and universities in an effort to bring the U.S. Constitution alive for the students."

Oral argument

Attorneys for each side will have an opportunity to present arguments, and the judges will have a chance to ask questions. The panel will then take each case under consideration and will issue a written decision at a later date, usually within 60 days from the date of oral argument.

There are 14 judges on the Court of Appeals. Usually, they sit in panels of three to hear arguments and decide cases. In fiscal year 2022, the Court of Appeals resolved appeals in more than 1,000 cases, including 781 cases in which the court issued formal written decisions.

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 17
Purple Masque Theater
Kansas State University
Manhattan

Appeal No. 125,580: State of Kansas v. Thomas Goforth

Sedgwick: (Criminal Appeal) Following his release from prison for exploitation of a child convictions, Thomas Goforth participated in a polygraph examination, as a condition of his postrelease supervision. Goforth's responses to two of the questions asked during the exam caused Goforth's parole officer concern and eventually resulted in a warrantless search of Goforth's phone. The parole officer recruited help from a law enforcement officer to perform a technical search of Goforth's phone, which Kansas Department of Corrections officers lacked ability to perform on their own. This search led to the discovery of pornographic images of children. The State charged Goforth with five counts of exploitation of a child by possessing a visual depiction. Goforth moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the discovery of the images stemmed from compelled, self-incriminating statements in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Goforth also argued that the law enforcement officer who searched his phone could not act according to the broad statutory authority provided to KDOC officers in conducting random searches relevant to postrelease supervision matters and instead needed to show that she had an independent reasonable suspicion to search his phone. The district court denied Goforth's motion, and a jury convicted him on all counts. On appeal, Goforth argues the admission of the evidence stemming from his polygraph examination violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment principles. He also challenges his convictions as multiplicitious.

Appeal No. 126,900: Molly Ellis v. Kim McNeese and Flint Hills Technical College

Lyon: (Civil Appeal) Molly Ellis was a nursing student at Flint Hills Technical College (Flint Hills) who was unable to participate in clinic coursework at Newman Regional Hospital (Newman) because Newman established a policy requiring students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Ellis sought a religious exemption but was informed Flint Hills could not grant her one. She sued Flint Hills and Kim McNeese, the director of nursing at Flint Hills, under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (KPRFA). The district court preliminarily enjoined Defendants to alter Ellis' grades for her Newman clinics from failing to incomplete. It ultimately granted Flint Hills and McNeese’s summary judgment motion on Ellis’ KPRFA claim. Ellis moved to amend her petition to add a Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) claim. The district court denied Ellis' motion. Ellis appeals the district court’s summary judgment order and denial of her motion to add a KCPA claim.

Appeal No. 126,589: State of Kansas v. Miguel Ignacio Baez

Sedgwick: (Criminal Appeal) Baez appeals his convictions of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and criminal acquisition of drug proceeds derived from violations of drug laws. On appeal, Baez contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress based on his claim that the law enforcement officers did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Specifically, he challenges the district court's ruling that reasonable suspicion can be based on the officers' detection of the odor of marijuana coming from a moving vehicle. In addition, Baez argues the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal acquisition of drug proceeds.