## Facts

- Police received information from a confidential informant that Brandon Prouse, wanted on an outstanding probation-violation warrant, was staying at a particular residence and had attempted to sell anhydrous ammonia associated with methamphetamine production.
- Officers conducted surveillance around midnight and saw Prouse outside the residence.
- When officers ordered Prouse to stop, he fled back into the residence; officers immediately followed him inside and arrested him after a brief chase through the house.
- Officers encountered multiple occupants inside and noticed a strong chemical odor.
- Officers conducted a protective sweep for officer safety and observed, in plain view, items consistent with an operating methamphetamine laboratory.
- Steven R. Thomas identified himself as the homeowner and stated officers “might as well take his drugs,” indicating drugs in his front pants pocket.
- Officers seized the drugs from Thomas and arrested him; the State charged him with multiple drug offenses, including unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance.
- The trial court denied Thomas’s motion to suppress; he was convicted.
- On appeal, convictions were affirmed, but the manufacturing sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing; the state supreme court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether officers lawfully entered a third party’s residence without a search warrant to arrest a suspect who fled inside after officers attempted to execute an arrest warrant.
2. Whether the protective sweep exceeded constitutional limits, requiring suppression of observed meth-lab evidence.
3. Whether the meth-lab evidence was admissible under the plain-view doctrine.
4. Whether Thomas’s statement and the seizure of drugs from his pocket were constitutionally valid.
5. Whether the sentence for unlawful manufacture had to be vacated and remanded for resentencing under the rule announced in State v. McAdam.

## Decision

- The court held the warrantless entry was lawful because officers were executing a valid arrest warrant, observed the suspect, and pursued him immediately into the residence when he fled.
- The court upheld the protective sweep as a quick, limited safety measure supported by reasonable concerns given multiple occupants and a strong chemical odor.
- The court held meth-lab items observed during the sweep were admissible under plain view because officers were lawfully present and the incriminating character was immediately apparent.
- The court upheld the seizure of drugs from Thomas’s pocket as supported by probable cause arising from Thomas’s voluntary admission and as valid incident to his lawful arrest.
- The court affirmed Thomas’s convictions but vacated the sentence for unlawful manufacture and remanded for resentencing consistent with McAdam.

## Legal Principles

- Officers executing an arrest warrant may enter a dwelling without a search warrant when, after a direct attempt to detain the suspect, the suspect flees into the dwelling and officers immediately and continuously pursue to complete the arrest.
- A protective sweep incident to an in-home arrest is permitted when officers can articulate a reasonable belief that the area to be swept may harbor a dangerous person; the sweep must be brief and limited to places where a person could be concealed.
- Evidence observed in plain view is admissible when officers are lawfully present, the item’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent, and officers have a lawful basis to be in the position from which the observation is made.
- A suspect’s voluntary admission of possession of contraband can supply probable cause for arrest; a search and seizure of the contraband from the person is permissible incident to that lawful arrest.
- When two criminal statutes punish the same conduct with different penalties, sentencing must follow the lesser penalty as required by the McAdam rule.

## Conclusion

The court held that officers lawfully entered the residence in immediate pursuit of a warrant subject, conducted a permissible protective sweep, and could use meth-lab evidence seen in plain view; it also upheld the seizure of drugs from Thomas based on his admission and a search incident to arrest, while requiring resentencing on the manufacturing count under McAdam.


State v. Thomas, 280 Kan. 526, 124 P.3d 49 (Kan. 2005)