Court Orders Kansas Patrol to Cease Profiling Drivers
A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) systematically violated drivers’ constitutional rights by deliberately stopping vehicles with out-of-state license plates. This decision is a serious blow to a long-standing police practice on one of the nation’s busiest highways, Interstate 70.
The Case of Shaw v. Jones and “Innocent” Factors
The case of Shaw v. Jones, filed in 2020, exposed a long-standing patrol practice: selectively stopping drivers, especially those traveling to or from Colorado, and unreasonably prolonging these stops. The court found that patrol officers routinely used the driver’s state of residence and travel plans to justify prolonged detentions, vehicle searches, and the use of drug-sniffing dogs.
The judges of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that KHP policies and training violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
As early as 2016, another case established that a driver’s state of registration and travel on I-70 were “utterly innocent” factors that could not justify suspicion. Despite this, as the judges noted, the KHP continued to ignore this ruling.
Staggering Statistics
Figures presented by the ACLU clearly demonstrate the scale of the problem. While out-of-state drivers accounted for only about 35% of traffic on Kansas roads, they were subjected to 77% of all stops conducted by the patrol. Moreover, 90% of dog-assisted searches were also performed on out-of-state drivers. Testimony from the patrol officers themselves confirmed that the driver’s state of origin was routinely used to “develop reasonable suspicion.”
What is the “Kansas Two-Step” and the New Rules
As a result of the court’s decision, the KHP is required to revise its training programs and instruct its officers that a driver’s residency is irrelevant from the standpoint of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the court somewhat eased previous restrictions on the so-called “Kansas Two-Step”—a controversial tactic where an officer first signals the end of a stop but then immediately re-engages with the driver, attempting to initiate a “consensual” conversation to obtain new grounds for suspicion.
The court emphasized that it had never declared the “Two-Step” itself unconstitutional and had previously upheld this practice in individual cases.
Consequently, the district court has been ordered to narrow its ban, allowing the KHP to continue using this tactic, but with mandatory adherence to constitutional norms during the stops themselves. Lawyers note that a consensual conversation is one that a driver can simply refuse. In other words, if an officer attempts to perform the “two-step,” the wisest decision may be to calmly continue driving without further communication.
This appeals court decision points to a long-standing systemic problem in law enforcement where convenient but legally dubious methods become routine. Although the court somewhat retreated on the specific “two-step” tactic, the main message remains unchanged: police cannot build suspicion based on geography. For the thousands of drivers who cross Kansas daily, this decision should become a guarantee of greater protection of their rights, and for the patrol—a clear signal of the need for profound changes in operational culture and priorities. The effectiveness of the new training and real changes in stop statistics will be the best indicators of whether the law enforcement agency has heeded this signal.