State v. Parker
690 P.2d 1353
Kan.,1984.

One defendant was convicted in the District Court, Shawnee County, Matthew J. Dowd, J., of prostitution and obstruction of official duty, and the other defendant was convicted of obstruction of official duty, and they appealed. The Supreme Court, Prager, J., held that: (1) statute prohibiting prostitution is not vague or overbroad, and (2) defendants' responses to police officer's question regarding location of money, to wit, "I don't know what money you are talking about," was not sufficient evidence to convict them of obstruction of official duty.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

**1354 *353 Syllabus by the Court

1. K.S.A. 21-3512, which creates the crime of prostitution, is not unconstitutionally vague or indefinite or overbroad.
2. The "plain view" exception under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies only when three necessary elements are present: (1) The **1355 initial intrusion which afforded authorities the plain view is lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating character of the article is immediately apparent to searching authorities.
3. For an object to be incriminating for constitutional purposes, the seizing authority need only have reasonable or probable cause to believe that the object is evidence of a crime.
4. The scope of K.S.A. 21-3808 is broad enough to encompass oral statements as well as physical acts. The intent of that statute is to make criminal the willful obstruction by any means of an officer acting in the discharge of his official duty.
5. In order for a defendant to be found guilty of obstruction of official duty under K.S.A. 21-3808, it must be shown that the act of the defendant substantially hindered or increased the burden of the officer in carrying out his official duty.
6. Under the factual circumstances set forth in the opinion, where a defendant was the target of a criminal investigation and had been advised of his right to remain silent and where he was asked by a police officer as to the location of incriminating evidence and responded, "I don't know what money you are talking about," it is held that his response to the police officer was not sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of obstruction of official duty under K.S.A. 21-3808