State v. Soehner

── State v. Soehner ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 128,904 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SOEHNER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sherman District Court; SCOTT SHOWALTER, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed June 5, 2026. Affirmed. Michael S. Holland II, of Holland and Holland, of Russell, for appellant. Tyler W. Winslow, assistant solicitor general, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before GARDNER, P.J., MALONE and ATCHESON, JJ. PER CURIAM: Christopher Soehner brings this direct appeal of his conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol, contending that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop. After review, we affirm his conviction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 21, 2022, around 9:20 p.m., Officer Karina Angelos with the Goodland Police Department stopped Soehner's vehicle because it had a defective tag light. Based on evidence collected from this stop, the State charged Soehner with one 1 count each of: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol, second offense (referred to as DUI); (2) operating a vehicle without an interlock device; and (3) driving with defective tail lights. Before trial, Soehner moved to suppress any evidence obtained after his arrest because the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe Soehner had committed or was committing a crime. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on this motion, at which Angelos was the only witness. Her testimony established the following. Angelos stopped Soehner's vehicle because he had a defective tag light, but before she could make contact with him, she "observed unusual behavior" when he tried to get out of his car and come toward her patrol vehicle. Angelos ordered him to stay in his car, and then she approached to advise Soehner why she had stopped him. At that point, Angelos smelled the "odor of consumed alcohol" on Soehner, saw that he had watery and glossy eyes, and noticed that he was nervous. Angelos asked for Soehner's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Soehner responded that he did not have his license on him because it had just recently been reinstated after being suspended, so Angelos took Soehner's information to verify his identity. Angelos asked Soehner if he had been drinking, and he denied it. After Angelos collected that information, she asked Soehner if he wanted to see the faulty tag light for himself. Soehner responded that he did, and when he was exiting the vehicle, he "struck" her with the car door. She then asked Soehner again if he had been drinking, and he again denied that he had. Soehner inspected the tag light and then Angelos instructed him to get back in his vehicle while she ran his information. 2  But Soehner did not stay in his car. While Angelos was talking with dispatch, he exited his vehicle again. At this point, Angelos perceived Soehner's behavior as "unpredictable," so she had Soehner sit on the curb while Angelos finished talking to dispatch. Dispatch informed her that Soehner had a restricted driver's license. Because Angelos could not find those restrictions, she asked Soehner what they were, and he responded that he was supposed to have an ignition interlock device on his vehicle. But Angelos saw that no ignition interlock device was on the vehicle. At this point Angelos suspected Soehner of driving under the influence and asked him