Conclusory Suppression Motion Preserves Nothing for Appeal

State v. Anderson, No. 126,770, (Kan. Jan. 13, 2026).

Staff Editor Louis Christifano Jr.

February 3, 2026

Issue:  Did a defendant preserve a Fourth Amendment issue for appeal when his motion to suppress at trial alleged merely conclusory statements and stipulated facts, without explaining how the search or seizure was unlawful?

Answer:  No, his motion only asserted conclusory statements, meaning he did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review.

Facts:  A Kansas trooper stopped Takota Anderson for speeding. During the stop, the trooper observed Anderson exhibit signs of alcohol consumption, causing the trooper to then perform a PBT.  Based on the PBT results, the trooper administered a certified breath alcohol test on Anderson, revealing that Anderson’s blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit.

Anderson moved to suppress the PBT, claiming involuntary consent.  His motion included conclusory statements and stipulated facts but failed to explain what rendered the PBT unconstitutional.  The district court denied the motion without ruling on the issue of voluntariness.  On appeal, the appellate panel concluded that Anderson did not properly preserve the issue of voluntariness, dismissing his appeal.

Discussion:  To properly preserve the issue of voluntariness for appeal, the motion to suppress must state specific facts that indicate how the search or seizure was unlawful. If the defendant states such facts, only then is the prosecution required to prove that the search or seizure was lawful. This requirement assures that the prosecution is aware of the basis for the motion and allows the court to focus on the particular issues being raised.

In his motion to suppress, Anderson only stated that he was subjected to a PBT, that his consent was unlawfully coerced, and that coerced consent is involuntary.  Although the first assertion is factual, the second and third assertions lacked any supporting facts, making them merely conclusory.   Without more facts, the appellate court could not determine how the search or seizure was allegedly unlawful.

The dissent believed that the majority failed to recognize that a warrantless search is presumptively unconstitutional, meaning Anderson needed only assert a PBT occurred to show its unlawfulness.  However, the majority disagreed, holding that stating facts meant more than stating plain assertions.

Key Authorities: 

Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3216(2) (requiring a suppression motion to state facts showing wherein a search or seizure was unlawful).

State v. Estrada-Vital, 356 P.3d 1058 (Kan. 2015) (defendant must allege facts to invoke the prosecution's and the district court's obligations).

State v. Gray, 403 P.3d 1220 (Kan. 2017) (defendant must explain why facts render the search unlawful).