Shaw v. Smith.

Nos. 23-3264 & 23-3267. 1/29/2026. D.Kan. Judge Federico. Fourth Amendment—Traffic Stops—Reasonable Suspicion—Injunctive and Declaratory Relief—Abuse of Discretion.

January 29, 2026

This case involved a series of traffic stops in Kansas. Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) Trooper Schulte stopped Blaine Shaw, who was driving with his brother in the car, for speeding on I-70. The Shaws were driving from Oklahoma to Colorado in a car with Osage Nation license plates. Schulte issued Blaine a speeding ticket and told him to have a safe trip. Schulte then performed the “Kansas Two-Step” (Two-Step), a tactic where troopers complete a traffic stop and then reengage the driver in conversation to secure the driver’s consent for further questioning and ultimately develop reasonable suspicion for search procedures. The tactic targets drivers traveling from drug source states to drug destination states. Blaine answered more of Schulte’s questions but refused consent to a car search. Schulte then detained the Shaws for a canine sniff and a search, which yielded no contraband. The other plaintiffs in this case had similar interactions with KHP.

As relevant here, plaintiffs brought claims for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983 against KHP Superintendent Smith, claiming a violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and a violation of their constitutional right to travel under Article IV, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs introduced evidence that their stops were not exceptional, including testimony from KHP troopers and three other individuals who had been stopped while driving but were not plaintiffs in the suit. Evidence was also presented of data suggesting that numerous other drivers have been stopped in a similar manner because KHP disproportionately detains out-of-state drivers coming into Kansas. The district court found that out-of-state drivers are stopped at disproportionately higher rates than Kansas residents; that KHP authorizes troopers to use a driver’s state of origin to determine reasonable suspicion; and that KHP conducts the Two-Step in a coercive manner, acting in a way that would make a reasonable driver unsure if they were free to leave. The district court ruled that KHP troopers were consistently using the Two-Step to detain drivers in violation of the Fourth Amendment and entered declaratory and permanent injunctive relief for plaintiffs. The injunction provides that, when determining if reasonable suspicion exists, KHP is enjoined from giving weight to a driver’s travel to or from certain “drug source” states or on a suspected “drug corridor.” KHP is also enjoined from using the Two-Step to extend traffic stops without reasonable suspicion or the driver’s voluntary consent. The injunction applies to drivers and their passengers traveling in Kansas on I-70, I-35, US Route 54, or US Route 36 who have out-of-state plates and appear to be driving to or from Colorado. The injunction also requires KHP to document its compliance, inform drivers of their right to refuse consent whenever asking for consent to search, record and review traffic stops, revise its training curriculum, and produce reports of its performance compliance. The injunction is set to be in effect for four years but may be dissolved after two years if KHP demonstrates it has achieved the injunction’s objectives.

On appeal, Smith argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. He maintained that plaintiffs’ claims must fail because the injunction is designed to prevent future injury that is not imminent. Under Vasquez v. Lewis, 834 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2016), the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of state residency to justify a traffic stop or the continuation of a traffic stop. Here, plaintiffs’ evidence showed that they plan to continue traveling through Kansas and must drive on Kansas highways to do so. And given the frequency of traffic stops and data showing that the KHP disproportionately targets of out-of-state drivers, plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk that they will have another traffic stop encounter with KHP, regardless of how carefully they try to follow traffic laws. Plaintiffs thus established standing to pursue injunctive relief.

Smith also argued that the district court abused its discretion by granting the permanent injunction, asserting that the district court’s injunction violates respect for federalism. However, the district court found that there was a pervasive practice of unconstitutional searches and seizures, and that KHP troopers were trained to engage in those practices. Accordingly, there was no inherent abuse of discretion on federalism grounds.

Smith further contended that the district court exceeded its equitable authority because (1) there were only a few examples of trooper misconduct presented at trial and (2) money damages provide an adequate alternative remedy. First, the district court also relied on other evidence, including a report and testimony about KHP training, to establish that KHP troopers were consistently violating the Constitution and were trained to do so. The Tenth Circuit deferred to the district court’s findings of fact at this stage of the proceedings and did not find that the court abused its discretion by granting an injunction because only a limited number of drivers testified. Second, plaintiffs alleged a substantial risk of ongoing constitutional injury, which cannot be fully redressed solely by money damages. And potential money damages in individual lawsuits does not preclude injunctive relief.

As to the injunction provisions, the Tenth Circuit determined that plaintiffs did not show that anything more than mandatory training is necessary. It held that the district court abused its discretion by granting injunctive relief beyond ordering further training regarding the irrelevance of a driver’s state of origin. The Tenth Circuit also determined that the record does not support injunctive relief regarding KHP’s Two-Step practice, because the circuit has never held that this practice has violated a driver’s constitutional rights and has repeatedly upheld that practice in specific cases. It set aside as an abuse of discretion the portion of the district court’s injunction that concerns the Kansas Two-Step.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.