ACLU wants strict rules for traffic stops after Kansas troopers ‘waged war’ on drivers
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas is urging a federal judge to impose a severe injunction against the Kansas Highway Patrol to block future violations of drivers’ constitutional rights. Under the rule, troopers would need to receive training and keep detailed records about traffic stops, among other requirements.
Federal Judge Kathryn Vratil proposed the injunction last month when she issued a scathing ruling that found the state’s top law enforcement agency had “waged war on motorists” and violated their 4th Amendment rights through the use of the “Kansas two-step.”
In the practice, troopers would take a couple steps away from a stopped driver’s car at the end of a traffic stop before returning to begin a “voluntary” interaction with the driver — continuing to probe them and buy time for backup and drug sniffing dogs to arrive.
The ACLU is representing drivers whose vehicles were searched because of the “two-step” and have argued the injunction is needed to eliminate the risk that those drivers’ rights are violated again.
In a filing last week the Kansas Attorney General’s office, representing KHP, argued that Vratil’s proposed injunction was unnecessary and created too much of an administrative burden on the agency.
Under the proposed injunction, troopers would have to document all stops, detentions and searches including information on the duration of the stop and how it ended. They would need to get approval from a supervisor for consensual searches and let drivers know they can revoke consent at any point.
The patrol would also be required to give officers a single consistent supervisor who worked the same hours as that officer, provide at least 24 hours of training on stops and hire a special master to oversee their compliance with all the requirements.
Though the patrol argued the injunction was unnecessary because existing legal remedies were sufficient, the ACLU said in a brief Monday that Vratil had already found that the injunction was appropriate and the best way to avoid more violations of drivers’ rights.
Paying damages to drivers whose rights were violated, the ACLU wrote, would not guarantee the agency would stop the practice in the future.
“Otherwise, the KHP would be able to openly flout the Fourth Amendment’s requirements so long as it could afford to remunerate the rare plaintiff who files a successful damages claim,” the filing said.
Additionally, the ACLU argued that the proposed terms of the injunction specifically answered problems identified in court.
KHP had argued that requirements around staffing of troopers and supervisors were impossible given the agency’s existing staffing and budget. A requirement that troopers alert their supervisors before initiating a search would impede upon their work as law enforcement officers, they argued, and they called the requirement that they inform drivers they can revoke consent for a search “overkill.”
Obtaining permission from supervisors, the ACLU argued, would help prevent the sorts of unconstitutional searches that resulted from the two-step, and requiring supervisors to work the same days as their troopers, they said, aligned with best practices.
Notice to drivers that they can revoke consent, the ACLU said, was necessary because “under these circumstances many motorists would not know that they could decline to answer additional questions from the officer or decline a search of their vehicle.”
A hearing on the terms of the injunction is scheduled for next month.
