verbal acts and, therefore, not hearsay at all. United States v. Faulkner, 439 F.3d 1221, 1226-27 (10th Cir. 2006); Jenkins v. United States, 80 A.3d 978, 993 (D.C. 2013). Those verbal acts may provide the predicate evidence of a conspiracy. United States v. Lim, 984 F.2d 331, 336 (9th Cir. 1993); Jenkins, 80 A.3d at 993; Arguelles v. State, 842 So. 2d 939, 944 (Fla. Dist. App. 2003). In Faulkner, the appellate court appropriated this explanation: "'If three persons are prosecuted for conspiracy, the conversation in which they plan the venture and agree to participate is not [*24]  hearsay, and the words spoken by each may be proved against all[.]'" 439 F.3d at 1226-27 (quoting Mueller, The Federal Coconspirator Exception: Action, Assertion, and Hearsay, 12 Hofstra L. Rev. 323, 326 [1984]). The legal significance of those statements lies in their utterance and not in the truth of any asserted facts. As verbal acts, they show the existence of an agreement to accomplish an illicit objective and are admissible for that purpose outside the prohibition on hearsay.

Once the prosecution has made a prima facie showing of both a conspiratorial agreement and an overt act using nonhearsay evidence, it may then rely on the hearsay exception to admit communications among the participants for the truth of the matters asserted to prove details about the promotion and advancement of the agreement. See State v. Davey, 306 Kan. 814, 822, 397 P.3d 1190 (2017). As the Davey court explained, the coconspirator hearsay exception covers out-of-court statements made by a participant in the conspiracy in furtherance of and during the life of the conspiracy. 306 Kan. at 822.^[1]

[1] An example may illuminate the hearsay issues. B texts C: "A and I plan to rob the First National Bank next Tuesday. We need at least three untraceable rifles and three untraceable pistols and a fast getaway car with a top driver. What [*25]  do you say?" C texts back: "No problem. I can have those things at my place on Sunday. I'm the best wheelman in town." B responds: "K. We're counting on you." Those statements are verbal acts and, thus, not hearsay if offered to show a conspiratorial agreement between B and C and the scope of the agreement. They would be hearsay if offered to prove B actually needs six guns to rob a bank or C is the best getaway driver—the truth of the matters asserted. And it is likely hearsay to prove A's participation in the scheme. But a text message from C to B on Saturday night saying he has acquired the guns and a car does not amount to a verbal act establishing the nature of the conspiracy. If offered for the truth of those assertions, that statement would be relevant to show the progression of the plan and to corroborate overt acts in furtherance of the plan. But the statement would also be hearsay. The admission of the first text messages as a nonhearsay verbal act would provide the requisite factual predicate for the conspiracy, allowing the later text messages to be admitted under the coconspirator hearsay exception.

Here, the January 11 text messages between Bollig and Angel discussing [*26]  having her husband put an abortifacient in Naomi's coffee compose a verbal act shaping the scope and objective conspiracy. They explore a specific way to terminate Naomi's pregnancy. The January 23 exchange about having Angel ingratiate herself with Naomi to create an opportunity to clandestinely administer the Mifepristone similarly presents a verbal act outlining a plan to accomplish the objective of the conspiracy. The exchanges plainly, if inferentially, show the termination of Naomi's pregnancy to be the object of their concerted action. In turn, their other text messages were admissible and could be considered by the jury as communications between coconspirators. Those messages include discussions between Bollig and Angel about the efficacy of various drugs in inducing miscarriages. The jury had sufficient admissible evidence of an agreement between Bollig and Angel to terminate Naomi's pregnancy against her wishes to support the guilty verdict.

The jury also had sufficient evidence supporting the overt act the State identified—Bollig's online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol. The State introduced as trial exhibits documents recovered from Bollig's computer showing an order [*27]  for the drugs and tracking information on shipment. And Bollig admitted placing the order, although he testified at trial he did so at Naomi's direction. Were Bollig's assertion true, his acquisition of the drugs would not have been an overt act furthering the charged conspiracy. As we discuss momentarily, the jury had good reason to discount his explanation.

Viewed favorably to the State, all of that evidence showed the conspiracy preceded the overt act. The evidence, then, supported each element of the conspiracy charge. The State did not have to prove Bollig or Angel actually attempted to carry out their plan by giving Naomi the drugs. But evidence that Bollig tried to do so by lacing the pancakes with Mifepristone circumstantially corroborates the object crime outlined in text messages and, thus, the conspiracy. That evidence also directly supported the first-degree murder charge. During the trial, Bollig, of course, offered a different version of how Naomi ingested the Mifepristone, presenting the jury with a factual conflict to resolve.

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must resolve factual conflicts in the State's favor if reasonable jurors could do so. The jury [*28]  here could make a reasoned credibility determination that Bollig ordered the Mifepristone and Misoprostol as part of the conspiracy with Angel and later crushed the Mifepristone pill and fed it to Naomi without her knowledge to carry out their plan. First, the January 11 text message exchange between Bollig and Naomi unambiguously shows she intended to carry the pregnancy to term. Naomi's assertion undercuts Bollig's testimony that he ordered the Mifepristone and Misoprostol three days later at her behest. Nothing in the evidence suggested Naomi changed her mind in that time. At trial, Naomi testified she never asked Bollig to order the drugs.

According to the law enforcement officers and Naomi, Bollig admitted in separate conversations with them to secretly putting the Mifepristone in the pancakes. Bollig, of course, denied those admissions. Bollig testified that Naomi put the drug in her pancakes, and he claimed to have told the officers as much when they questioned him. Bollig's testimony essentially meant either he or Naomi and the officers were lying—the conflicting accounts could not reasonably be reconciled as the product of honestly differing recollections.

On balance, Bollig's [*29]  version makes very little sense. Why would Naomi opt for a medication abortion after she had adamantly rejected that idea even when she and Bollig weighed terminating the pregnancy? Why would Naomi have had Bollig obtain drugs for a medication abortion after she told him she intended to have their child? Why would Naomi have asked Bollig to order Mifepristone and Misoprostol from a foreign supplier rather than asking her physician? Why wouldn't she simply take the Mifepristone pill with a sip of water rather than going through some odd ritual with the pancakes? And why wouldn't she later take the Misoprostol, as the protocol for the drugs required?

Those questions lend themselves to no particularly reasonable explanations apart from Bollig's prevarication. The jurors reasonably could have found Bollig to be lying about some or all of what happened. If they concluded he lied about particular material circumstances, they could rely on that conclusion to disbelieve the rest of his account. See State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 936, 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (Jurors may reasonably conclude that a witness "deliberately false in one claim . . . may have been deliberately false in others."); State v. Moreno, 996 A.2d 673, 681 (R.I. 2010) (noting appropriateness of defense counsel's jury argument that [*30]  a witness false in one thing may be considered false in all things).

In sum, the evidence viewed favorably to the State shows that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt a conspiracy between Bollig and Angel to terminate Naomi's pregnancy by giving Naomi an abortifacient without her knowledge. The evidence also supported Bollig's order for the drugs as the alleged overt act taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. Naomi's ingestion of Mifepristone under suspicious circumstances buttresses the conspiracy, especially in light of the earlier text message in which she told Bollig she had no intention of having an abortion and his expressed displeasure in response. The text message also corroborates Naomi's testimony that she intended to carry the pregnancy to term and that she did not knowingly consume the Mifepristone.^[2]

[2]The verdict acquitting Bollig of the first-degree murder of Naomi's fetus has no particular legal significance in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction. The jurors heard expert medical testimony that Naomi might have suffered a spontaneous miscarriage unrelated to her unintentional ingestion of Mifepristone. Although [*31]  that possibility was characterized as unlikely, the expert testimony also established that a measurable number of pregnancies end with spontaneous miscarriages. Naomi consumed some of the Mifepristone and none of the Misoprostol. The evidence may have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about the cause of the miscarriage and, thus, to account for the jury's not guilty verdict on the charge of first-degree murder. Conversely, proof of an agreement between Bollig and Angel and his action in ordering the Mifepristone and Misoprostol would have supported a charge of and conviction for conspiracy, even if he never attempted to administer either of the drugs to Naomi.

The trial evidence legally supported the jury's verdict convicting Bollig of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

As a separate point on appeal, Bollig has argued the text messages between him and Angel were inadmissible hearsay and the district court erroneously admitted them at trial under the coconspirator exception in K.S.A. 60-460(i)(2). Bollig premises that argument on the lack of independent evidence of a conspiracy, thereby undercutting the admission of all of the statements. We think our discussion here, showing that the [*32]  hearsay exception applies, disposes of the argument. That is, the State offered text messages between Bollig and Angel that were nonhearsay verbal acts outlining the scope of the conspiracy. Those messages were sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of a conspiracy, thereby permitting the admission of the other text messages under the coconspirator hearsay exception.

We typically review a district court's ruling on the admission of hearsay evidence for abuse of discretion. Davey, 306 Kan. at 820. A district court exceeds that discretion if it rules in a way no reasonable judicial officer would under the circumstances, if it ignores controlling facts or relies on unproven factual representations, or if it acts outside the legal framework appropriate to the issue. See Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 935, 296 P.3d 1106 (2013); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011). Bollig contends the district court applied an inappropriate legal standard, essentially affording us unlimited review of a question of law. See Davey, 306 Kan. at 820. Even reviewing the district court's ruling without deference, we see no evidentiary error in admitting the text messages between Bollig and Angel.

Bollig's Constitutional Challenges to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 Fail

Bollig attacks his conviction with three arguments that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419, criminalizing fetal demise, is unconstitutional [*33]  and, therefore, unenforceable. He says the statute is impermissibly vague, exceeds the State's police powers with respect to nonviable fetuses, and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it treats fathers of fetuses less favorably than mothers. We find none of the constitutional challenges persuasive.

Bollig contends K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 is impermissibly vague—meaning the statute doesn't give fair notice of what the Legislature has criminalized—because of ambiguities about when "fertilization" of an ovum occurs and whether that differs from conception in defining an "unborn child" as a person for purposes of the criminal homicide statutes. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123, 99 S. Ct. 2198, 60 L. Ed. 2d 755 (1979) (constitutional due process requires criminal statute provide fair notice of proscribed conduct); State v. Adams, 254 Kan. 436, 439, 866 P.2d 1017 (1994) (same). He also says there are differing opinions about when life begins and death occurs, leaving jurors to fall back on their own philosophical, moral, and religious views in deciding a case like this and, thus, prompting impermissibly disparate outcomes in legally comparable circumstances.

As we have said, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 effectively places a fetus from fertilization within the definition of a person under the criminal code's homicide statutes. Although Bollig's contentions may have academic or [*34]  theoretical interest on the assumption the State might attempt to prosecute someone for causing the demise of a recently fertilized ovum, they have no pertinence here. At the time Naomi miscarried, she was eight weeks pregnant. The pregnancy had been medically confirmed, and Bollig knew Naomi was pregnant. Notwithstanding any possible scientific difference between fertilization and conception, Naomi's fetus undeniably came within the meaning of an "unborn child" in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(a)(2).

Under the circumstances, Bollig lacks standing to assert that void-for-vagueness challenge to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 and the resulting scope of K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5402(a)(1), criminalizing intentional first-degree murder, to include fetuses. Those statutes are neither vague nor ambiguous as applied to Bollig. They unquestionably prohibited him from intentionally causing the demise of Naomi's eight week old fetus and, therefore, from conspiring with others to do so. Criminal defendants cannot successfully assert vagueness claims when their conduct obviously falls within the statutory prohibitions even though the statutory language might be ambiguous when applied to certain hypothetical conduct. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 170 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2008); State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911, 919, 329 P.3d 400 (2014).

Likewise, even if some people philosophically disagree with the idea of [*35]  criminalizing the demise of a nonviable fetus as a homicide because the fetus isn't sentient or otherwise lacks sufficient attributes of a human being, the statutory proscriptions foster no such legal ambiguity. Jurors need not resort to their personal views of when life begins or when a fetus becomes a person to apply the law in this sort of case. Nor should they. See State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208, Syl. ¶ 3, 510 P.2d 153 (1973) (duty of jury to accept and apply law as given in district court's instructions). Debate about whether the demise of a nonviable fetus constitutes the death of a human being in a philosophical or religious sense is similarly irrelevant. The governing statutory language clearly criminalized the objective of the charged conspiracy. Taken together, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5402(a)(1) and K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 unambiguously proscribe what the State alleges Bollig conspired to do by agreeing to terminate Naomi's pregnancy against her wishes. We do not understand Bollig to be arguing otherwise. Accordingly, the void-for-vagueness arguments fails.

Bollig next argues that the State exceeded its constitutional authority by criminalizing conduct resulting in the demise of a fetus that has yet to become viable. The argument depends upon extending a woman's substantive due process right [*36]  to terminate her own pregnancy to a third party who intentionally acts to kill a fetus contrary to the woman's wishes—a strange constitutional misappropriation, to say the least. Bollig extracts language from Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), recognizing the State's limited rights with respect to fetuses before viability, but he fails to acknowledge the broader constitutional discussion of which that language is merely one part. In Roe, the Court balanced a woman's due process right to terminate her own pregnancy with the State's interests in regulating abortion procedures to insure the woman's safety and in protecting "fetal life after viability" notwithstanding the woman's right. The woman's constitutional right predominates over the State's interest with respect to fetuses that have not reached viability. 410 U.S. at 163-64.

Nothing in Roe or later reproductive rights cases suggests the sort of transposition Bollig makes here to shield his conduct in conspiring to terminate Naomi's pregnancy against her will. We assume the State can in some fashion criminalize that conduct, so long as the means used do not otherwise unduly burden a woman's due process right to reproductive freedom. See Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S.    , 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2309, 195 L. Ed. 2d 665 (2016) (state regulations may not "impose an undue [*37]  burden" on woman's constitutional right to abortion). Whether K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 satisfies that constitutional directive is not properly before us, since Bollig has no legal basis, i.e., standing, to assert Naomi's due process right to voluntarily choose to terminate her own pregnancy to upend his conviction and punishment for conspiring to terminate her pregnancy against her wishes. The inherent contradiction in the proposition is self-defeating: Bollig cannot invoke Naomi's right to make a choice about continuing her pregnancy to shield his deliberate conduct intended to deprive her of that very choice. Nor can he abstractly claim the protection extended to any hypothetical pregnant woman under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 to thwart his prosecution and conviction. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499-500, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975) (Parties generally "must assert [their] own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest [a] claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.").^[3]

[3]In a few limited circumstances, the courts relax standing requirements to allow a litigant to assert the rights of a nonparty when the two are closely allied in legal interest. So, for example, physicians who perform abortions have been permitted to assert constitutional arguments based on the due [*38]  process rights of their current or potential patients. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-18, 96 S. Ct. 2868, 49 L. Ed. 2d 826 (1976); Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 280 Kan. 903, 921, 128 P.3d 364 (2006); Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 1221 (9th Cir. 2013). Bollig and Naomi have no such community of interest here that would allow him to base a claim on her rights.

Finally, Bollig contends K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by shielding a pregnant woman from criminal liability for her actions causing a miscarriage or fetal demise without comparable protections for the father of the fetus. Bollig characterizes the difference in treatment as an impermissible form of sex discrimination. He has misframed the equal protection issue and, as a result, comes to an erroneous conclusion.

The Equal Protection Clause prevents state and local governments from treating groups of people differently, whether through legislative enactment or other policies and practices, without some justification. See Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75-76, 92 S. Ct. 251, 30 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1971) ("The Equal Protection Clause . . . den[ies] to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute."); Jurado v. Popejoy Constr. Co., 253 Kan. 116, 123, 853 P.2d 669 (1993) ("[E]qual protection requires . . . that legislative classifications be reasonable, not arbitrary, and that they be justified by legitimate legislative objectives."). The courts have recognized the government's [*39]  use of sex or gender as a characteristic in parceling out benefits or imposing burdens offends the Equal Protection Clause unless the classification substantially advances an important governmental interest. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 397 (1976); Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 299-300 (3d Cir. 2015).

Here, the difference in treatment under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 that Bollig cites simply takes account of and seeks to preserve the fundamental constitutional right extended to pregnant women in charting the course of their pregnancies. That is an entirely proper governmental objective and does not result in a classification lacking a legally appropriate justification. Moreover, the protection in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 does not create a gender-based benefit, since it applies to a woman only with regard to her own pregnancy. The classification in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419, therefore, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Bollig's argument first rests on a faulty understanding of the legal basis for the statutory exemption extended to the pregnant woman in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419. As we have said, a woman has a substantive due process right to terminate her pregnancy, subject to certain limitations after the fetus has become viable. But the State may not impose undue burdens on the woman's exercise of that fundamental right. See Whole Woman's Health, 136 S. Ct. at 2309-10.

The Legislature presumably sought to insulate K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 from an undue burden challenge [*40]  from a woman seeking an abortion by providing the exemptions for the pregnant woman and medical professionals performing surgical or medication abortions. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b) (outlining exemptions). Obviously, criminalizing abortion services or the actions of a pregnant woman to facilitate the termination of her own pregnancy would unconstitutionally burden a woman's due process right to reproductive freedom, including having abortions. The exemptions, then, reflect a legislative effort to craft a constitutional statute criminalizing fetal demise caused by third parties unassociated with a woman's decision to have a surgical or medication abortion or who, as the State alleged in this case, act contrary to a woman's intent to continue her pregnancy.

The substantive due process right to decide whether to have an abortion has never been extended to the father of the fetus. The decision, as a matter of constitutional law, has been reserved solely for the mother. See Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 68-69, 96 S. Ct. 2831, 49 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1976) (finding unconstitutional statutory requirement woman obtain consent of husband before getting abortion); cf. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 896-98, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992) (finding unconstitutional statutory requirement woman notify husband of intention to get abortion). In both Danforth and Casey [*41] , the Court presumed in most instances the husband would be the father of the fetus and, nonetheless, found no legal basis to require a woman to obtain consent from or even notify her husband that she intended to get an abortion. Those decisions recognize that fathers, as measured against mothers, simply do not have a similarly compelling constitutional interest in whether a pregnancy is continued to term. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 896 (recognizing mother has materially greater liberty interest than father in decisions affecting pregnancy and childbearing since they impose "upon the very bodily integrity of [a] pregnant woman"). The distinction K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 draws between mothers of fetuses, by according them an exemption from the criminal proscriptions for causing fetal demise and fathers, who have none, simply mirrors their respective constitutional interests and, therefore, does not amount to impermissible line-drawing offending the Equal Protection Clause.

The second problem with Bollig's argument plays off the first deficiency. The classification drawn in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 is not based on sex or gender. The exemption in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 applies to a pregnant woman and actions she takes with regard to her own pregnancy. No one else may claim that exemption—not the father, not men generally, or other women generally. Angel faced criminal liability based on K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 in the same way Bollig did. And she would have been just as liable had she conspired with another woman rather than Bollig to cause Naomi to miscarry. Thus, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 does not parcel out its benefit (an exemption from prosecution) based on sex but on the more narrow fundamental right of a woman to control her own reproductive freedom. Although only women may obtain that benefit, only one woman can in any particular case. [*42]  The classification, therefore, does not rest on sex as the governing criterion. Accordingly, Bollig has not presented a sex-based equal protection violation.

Bollig has failed to articulate grounds on which K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419 might be unconstitutional as applied to him in this prosecution or on which his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder might be constitutionally infirm.

District Court Made Insufficient Findings Bollig Consented to the Search of His Smartphone, Requiring Remand for Findings and Supplemental Legal Conclusions

On appeal, Bollig contends the district court erred in denying his pretrial efforts to suppress his text messages with Angel that law enforcement officers recovered during a search of his smartphone. Bollig reprises dual arguments he presented to the district court: (1) He was impermissibly induced to give consent for the search and, therefore, did so involuntarily; and (2) government agents did not execute a search warrant for the information stored in smartphone within 96 hours, rendering the warrant void under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-2506(a) and the search impermissible. In the district court, Bollig raised a wider array of suppression issues covering a broader range of evidence. The district court held [*43]  several hearings on those issues, including the voluntariness of Bollig's written consents to search both his smartphone and his personal computer, and denied relief in exceptionally terse bench rulings that for the most part included neither credibility determinations nor any other formal findings of fact. In reviewing the issue, we have the district court's ultimate legal determination that Bollig voluntarily signed a consent for the search of his smartphone coupled with the evidentiary record compiled in the pretrial hearings but next to nothing from the district court bridging the two.

Although a district court's failure to make detailed or complete findings does not automatically preclude appellate review, the absence of virtually any factual determinations precludes us from making a meaningful assessment of the voluntariness of Bollig's consent to search his smartphone. Ordinarily in reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we would apply a bifurcated standard giving deference to the district court's findings of fact so long as they had support in the evidence and then making an independent determination whether those findings warranted the district court's legal conclusion. [*44]  State v. Patterson, 304 Kan. 272, 274, 371 P.3d 893 (2016); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 70, 159 P.3d 985 (2007). The State bears the burden of proving a search or seizure to be constitutionally permissible by a preponderance of the evidence. Patterson, 304 Kan. at 272; State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881, 886, 190 P.3d 234 (2008).

As we explain, there are material conflicts in the testimony from Bollig, on the one hand, and the law enforcement officers who obtained the written consent, on the other, bearing on the voluntariness of the consent. Because the district court failed to address, let alone resolve, the conflicts, we believe prudence requires a remand for additional fact-finding and supplemental legal conclusions allied with those findings. See State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 240-41, 328 P.3d 1081 (2014) (remand for additional findings if issue cannot otherwise be resolved on appeal); Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808, 825, 295 P.3d 560 (2013) (district court has "primary duty to provide adequate findings and conclusions" and appellate court may remand for "additional findings and conclusions").^[4]

[4]In this case, the district court effectively abandoned its duty to make pertinent findings. Under the circumstances, we decline to rely on the presumption that a district court has implicitly made all findings necessary to support its ruling. See Neighbors, 299 Kan. at 240 (noting presumption). The presumption may be appropriately applied when the district court explicitly makes findings of fact but fails to affirmatively [*45]  articulate one or more important or necessary findings and the party against whom the ruling has been entered makes no request for additional findings. Here, neither the State nor Bollig suggested to the district court that it should make at least some findings to support its legal conclusion upholding the validity of the consent to search. We remand for that purpose rather than invoking the presumption to supersede entirely the district court's obligation to sort and weigh conflicting relevant evidence, including contradictory testimony implicating witness credibility. We cannot make those determinations from a transcript and, therefore, cannot meaningfully review the issue. See O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., 294 Kan. 318, 361, 277 P.3d 1062 (2012) (remand appropriate when "the lack of specific findings" stymies appellate review).

To guide the district court, we outline some applicable legal principles, summarize the record evidence, and provide direction as to tasks remaining on remand.

A government agent's search of the information a citizen retains on his or her smartphone implicates the Fourth Amendment and typically requires a judicially issued warrant. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S.    , 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2485, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014). But a legally valid consent to search obviates the need for a warrant. State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189, 1195-96, 390 P.3d 879 (2017) (recognizing consent as among exceptions [*46]  to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement). Broadly speaking, the credible evidence must show a consent to be unequivocal, specific, and freely given—meaning uninfluenced by implied or express coercion or duress or by false promises of material benefits. State v. James, 301 Kan. 898, 909, 349 P.3d 457 (2015); State v. Thompson, 37 Kan. App. 2d 589, 596, 155 P.3d 724 (2007). The voluntariness of a given consent presents a question of fact dependent upon how a reasonable person would have perceived all of the circumstances. The test also has been framed in terms of the freedom to give a negative response to the government agents' request: Would a reasonable person have felt free to refuse to consent to the search? State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1107, 289 P.3d 68 (2012).

The courts have recognized indicia to be considered in weighing whether an encounter between government agents and an individual is voluntary or impermissibly coercive. Those factors, likewise, bear on the voluntariness of a consent to search given during such an encounter. 295 Kan. at 1108; State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 812-13, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). They include the location of the encounter, the number of officers involved, the tenor of the questioning, the display of weapons or other potentially intimidating conduct, any physical contact, and the individual's reasonable perception that he or she could leave or communicate with third persons. Spagnola, 295 Kan. at 1108; Thompson, 284 Kan. at 811. Government agents may also impermissibly [*47]  induce consent with deceptive promises of leniency or other benefits in contrast to coercive invocations of actual or implicit threats of harm. See Thompson, 37 Kan. App. 2d at 596; United States v. LeBeau, 867 F.3d 960, 971 (8th Cir. 2017) (voluntariness of consent dependent upon totality of circumstances, including whether government agents "falsely promised something"); United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 998 (10th Cir. 2016) (consent voluntary where, among other things, evidence showed law enforcement officers "us[ed] no threats or promises"). Persons agreeing to searches may limit the scope of their consent and, thus, the resulting search. And they may later withdraw their consent. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 252, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991) (consent to search may be limited in scope); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, Syl. ¶ 7, 368 P.3d 342 (2016) ("consent may be revoked or withdrawn at any time before the search has been completed"), aff'd on reh'g 306 Kan. 682, 392 P.3d 711 (2017).

The district court took up Bollig's motion to suppress the information recovered from his smartphone well after evidentiary hearings on other pretrial matters. The prosecutor and Bollig's lawyers agreed the district court could consider the testimony and other evidence received during the preliminary hearing and a hearing on an earlier motion Bollig filed to suppress as involuntary statements he made during the February 19 and February 20 meetings with Campbell and Eberle. See State v. Betancourt, 301 Kan. 282, 289, 342 P.3d 916 (2015) (noting that "at [*48]  a Jackson v. Denno [378 U.S. 368] hearing, the issue before the court is whether defendant's statement or confession was voluntary"). Bollig signed the disputed consent to search his smartphone at the first of those meetings.. The district court had already denied Bollig's motion to suppress the statements he made. As we discuss, the district court's ruling on that motion included only one limited factual finding potentially bearing on the voluntariness of Bollig's consent to search his smartphone. At the hearing on the motion to suppress the information obtained from Bollig's smartphone, the parties augmented the extant district court record with testimony focused on voluntariness. We summarize the evidence presented to the district court on the issue.

Eberle called Bollig at the bank the morning of February 19, 2014, and asked him to come to the police station to provide some information about Naomi's miscarriage. Bollig told Eberle he was quite busy. Eberle then offered to go to the bank. Bollig said he needed to wrap a couple of things up and would be over. About 15 minutes later, around 10:30 a.m., Bollig arrived at the police station. Eberle met Bollig in the lobby and immediately escorted him into the police [*49]  station. They went to Eberle's office. Eberle introduced Bollig to KBI Agent Campbell, who was waiting there. As we have indicated, Bollig was employed as an assistant vice president and loan officer at a local bank. Bollig testified he has two associate degrees from postsecondary schools.

After closing the office door, Campbell and Eberle questioned Bollig for about an hour and 45 minutes. Campbell asked most of the questions. Bollig was not handcuffed or physically restrained in any way. The officers neither told Bollig he was under arrest nor otherwise suggested he could not leave. But they did not affirmatively tell him he could leave if he wanted to. Bollig was not informed of his Miranda rights.

The office was small, so all three were relatively close physically. Eberle wore his uniform, including a duty belt on which he had a handgun. Campbell had on plainclothes and carried a handgun, although the record is less than clear about whether his sidearm was visible. Neither officer otherwise displayed or brandished a weapon. Bollig testified that at one point Eberle rolled his chair close and put his hands on Bollig's knees to punctuate an exhortation to tell the truth about what [*50]  happened to Naomi. Eberle agreed that he briefly moved his chair closer to Bollig but denied that he or Campbell touched Bollig during the questioning. Bollig testified that he concluded the door was locked because several times that morning Eberle got up to open the door when someone knocked. Eberle and Campbell testified the door was unlocked.

The record evidence indicates Bollig never asked to take a break or to make a telephone call, let alone leave. By all accounts, the questions were posed in a civil businesslike manner, and the responses were made in kind. The officers, however, did not make a verbatim video or audio recording of their examination of Bollig.

Partway through the meeting, Campbell asked about Bollig's smartphone and requested to see it. Bollig gave the phone to Campbell, who then held on to it. Bollig testified he relinquished the smartphone reluctantly. After Bollig asked for his smartphone back several times without success, Campbell displayed a search warrant permitting the seizure of the smartphone. The questioning continued.

Shortly after noon, Bollig indicated he would consent to a search of his smartphone. He signed a written consent at 12:19 p.m. Both Eberle [*51]  and Campbell signed the consent as witnesses. The written consent permits the KBI and other law enforcement officers to "view any and all electronic data" on the smartphone, which is identified by its make, model, and assigned number. The form includes acknowledgements that the person asked to give consent understands he or she may refuse to sign, that no promises or threats have been made to obtain consent, and that the consent once signed may be "withdraw[n] . . . at any time." At the suppression hearing, Bollig testified that Campbell told him if he signed the consent, the smartphone would be returned to him the next day. He also said the officers promised him that if he cooperated, nothing would happen to him. Bollig testified he signed the form because of those representations. Campbell and Eberle testified generally they made no promises or threats to Bollig.

A few minutes after signing the consent for the smartphone, Bollig signed a separate consent allowing a search of his personal computer. Bollig has not challenged the search of the computer as a point on appeal, and that signed consent form is not part of the record.

After Bollig signed the consent forms, he, Eberle, and Campbell [*52]  walked about half a block to his house, so the officers could take custody of his personal computer. All three of them returned to the police station in 10 minutes or so. Eberle made copies of the consents and other paperwork. Bollig then left the police station.

The next morning, Bollig called Eberle and said he wanted to talk further about the circumstances of Naomi's miscarriage. Eberle and Campbell indicated Bollig initiated the second meeting of his own accord and without any prompting. Bollig testified that before he left the police station on February 19, Eberle told him he needed to call or come back the next day.

In any event, on February 20, Bollig returned to the police station where Campbell and Eberle again spoke with him. The substance of the questioning on February 20 has no direct bearing on the suppression issue before us. During that meeting, the officers arrested Bollig for the homicide of Naomi's fetus. Bollig was booked and later released on bond. During the suppression hearing, the parties agreed law enforcement officers obtained a warrant on April 9 to search Bollig's smartphone and that between October 1, 2014, and February 27, 2015, a KBI employee extracted the [*53]  stored text messages and other information from the phone.

We cannot readily measure the voluntariness of Bollig's written consent to search from this record, since we are not in a position to make credibility determinations and there are materially conflicting accounts of what happened on February 19. See Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d at 936-37 (Appellate courts do not make credibility determinations because they have no opportunity to assess the demeanor and comportment of witnesses as they testify under oath and, in particular, as they respond to cross-examination.). The district court, as the fact-finder in the suppression hearings, had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses as they testified—a circumstance that may materially affect credibility assessments. See United States v. Owens, 789 F.2d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds 484 U.S. 554, 108 S. Ct. 838, 98 L. Ed. 2d 951 (1988). In theory, we could assume all of the disputed material facts to be as Bollig portrayed them and then attempt to decide the issue of voluntariness as a matter of law. See Patterson, 304 Kan. at 274; State v. James, 301 Kan. 898, 908, 349 P.3d 457 (2015). We decline that approach in this case both as unduly preemptive of the district court's role as the finder of facts and as potentially blurring the distinction between factual findings and legal conclusions when it comes to voluntariness. The better course [*54]  requires remand to the district court for the necessary factual findings and related legal conclusions.

In ruling on the motion to suppress the text messages, the district court simply incorporated by reference the earlier findings it made in denying the motion to suppress Bollig's statements to Eberle and Campbell during the questioning on February 19 and February 20. The district court discussed only two disputes in the evidence in its bench ruling regarding the statements.

First, the district court perceived a conflict in Eberle's and Bollig's account of their telephone call the morning of February 19. The district court indicated Bollig testified that Eberle both offered to come to the bank to question him and suggested the appearance of law enforcement officers there would be embarrassing to Bollig. The district court indicated Eberle "said that didn't happen." But the record shows Eberle testified that he did tell Bollig he would be willing to come to the bank. Eberle did not testify one way or the other about characterizing such a visit as potentially embarrassing to Bollig. The district court specifically declined to resolve the discrepancy because in its view neither version [*55]  would have contributed to the questioning at the police station being overbearing or coercive.

Second, the district court concluded the door to Eberle's office was not locked when the officers questioned Bollig on February 19 and obtained the signed consent to search. As we noted, there was conflicting evidence on the point. The district court discounted Bollig's deduction the door was locked. The district court suggested the individuals knocked before entering not because the door was locked but as a matter of etiquette and deference to a closed door. But that explanation fails to account for Bollig's undisputed testimony that Eberle got up and opened the door rather than simply asking the individuals to enter. Eberle's actions permit the inference the door may have been locked.

The locked-unlocked discrepancy doesn't appear to be particularly probative of the voluntariness of the consent for a couple of reasons. Bollig did not testify that Eberle used a key to open the door, so anyone inside the office apparently could have left without assistance. That undercuts the idea the "locked" door had trapped Bollig or otherwise materially contributed to a coercive environment. Moreover, Bollig [*56]  specifically testified he signed the consent because he was promised his smartphone would be returned the next day and that nothing bad would happen to him if he cooperated. He did not claim he signed because his will had been broken by a threatening or coercive atmosphere from which he felt unable to escape or in which he felt his physical safety was in jeopardy.

On remand, the district court should consider the evidentiary record the parties designated at the hearing on Bollig's motion to suppress the information obtained from his smartphone and the testimony and documents presented during that hearing. The remand is not intended to allow the parties to expand the evidentiary record. In its discretion, the district court may invite supplemental written or oral argument from the parties before making additional findings of fact and any related conclusions of law. The parties, however, should not presume to submit uninvited argument to the district court.

Points for the district court's consideration on remand include:

• Resolution of the conflicting testimony about promises made to Bollig on February 19. Bollig testified that he signed the written consent to search because Eberle and [*57]  Campbell told him nothing would happen to him if he cooperated and that his smartphone would be returned to him promptly if he consented to the search. The officers denied making any promises or threats to Bollig. This sort of conflict presents a quintessential credibility determination for the fact-finder and entails a probative point on the issue of voluntariness.

• If the district court were to find the officers more credible than Bollig on that point, meaning no such promises were made, the district court should assess whether a reasonable person in Bollig's position would have otherwise found the circumstances of the questioning on February 19 so oppressive that signing the consent to search would have been involuntary. Although Bollig did not expressly argue the written consent was the product of an impermissibly coercive interrogation, he did advance that argument in his earlier motion to suppress the statements he made to the officers. If the district court finds the environment were not impermissibly coercive, the district court should then make corresponding conclusions as to the voluntariness of Bollig's consent to the search of the smartphone and, in turn, the admissibility [*58]  at trial of the text messages retrieved from the phone.

• If the district court were to find Bollig more credible than the officers with regard to either or both of the promises, then the district court should identify the credible representation or representations and determine whether Bollig was thereby induced to sign the consent when he otherwise would not have done so. See Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d at 930 (fact-finder may believe some parts of witness' account and disbelieve other parts). If the district court finds either or both promises did not cause Bollig to sign the consent to search his smartphone, then it should determine whether the credible promises in conjunction with the overall atmosphere of the February 19 encounter caused him to do so.

• On remand, the district court obviously is not bound to the ultimate conclusion it previously reached on Bollig's motion to suppress the text messages. Were that true, we would be orchestrating an empty exercise. The district court also may revisit the limited factual findings it adopted in deciding the motion. If the district court were to conclude on remand Bollig did not voluntarily sign the consent to search—because of improper promises, an impermissibly coercive [*59]  environment at the police station, or a combination of the two—then the district court should determine the resulting legal effect. And in doing so, the district court may address any other relevant factual considerations or conflicts we have not expressly mentioned. Without looking at the search warrant as an alternative basis for the State's use of the text messages as evidence against Bollig, the district court should determine whether an involuntary consent would require suppression of the text messages and, if so, whether their admission at trial could be excused as harmless error. Although those determinations may seem superficially straightforward under the circumstances, they are the district court's to make in the first instance.

In addition to this opinion, we have entered a brief order remanding this consent issue to the district court for the purpose of making additional findings of fact and supplemental conclusions of law. After the district court has made those determinations, we will review the augmented appellate record and, if necessary, request further briefing from the parties. We intend to prepare a short opinion addressing the remaining appellate issues bearing [*60]  on Bollig's motion to suppress the text messages in light of the district court's additional findings and conclusions.

We recognize that the search warrant for the content of Bollig's smartphone could provide an alternative legal ground for admitting the text messages recovered from the phone. Bollig contends the warrant was not executed within 96 hours and, therefore, became void under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-2506(a). Having found Bollig's consent voluntary and otherwise sufficient to support the search of the smartphone, the district court did not consider the validity of the warrant.

The challenge to the search warrant presents interlocking questions that don't necessarily have obvious answers. For example, if a search warrant signed by a Kansas state court judge were not executed within 96 hours, does that failure render the resulting search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, which imposes no strict deadline? See United States v. Jennen, 596 F.3d 594, 600 (9th Cir. 2010) (search constitutionally reasonable despite six-day delay in executing warrant since basis for probable cause had not dissipated); United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078, 1096-97 (10th Cir. 2009) (Fourth Amendment does not require search warrants have expiration dates). Does it make a difference that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-2506(a) voids the warrant? Cf. United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 264-65 (6th Cir. 2012) (suggesting search unreasonable under Fourth Amendment if county judge approving [*61]  warrant lacked authority under state law to issue warrant to be executed outside that county). Courts should avoid addressing constitutional questions unnecessarily. See Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Prot. Assn., 485 U.S. 439, 445-46, 108 S. Ct. 1319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1988); State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 658, 367 P.3d 282 (2016). We apply that admonition for judicial restraint here, since we may be able to walk around the constitutional thicket, guided by far more prosaic findings of fact and related conclusions of law the district court should have made in the first instance on the validity of the written consent to search.

Bollig's alternative argument also presents novel questions about the interplay of portions of the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to search warrants, including K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-2506(a) and K.S.A. 22-2511 (no evidence suppressed because of "technical irregularities" in search warrant). The scope of any statutory remedy for an impermissible search may be an open question, as well. See K.S.A. 22-3216 (indicating evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure should be suppressed). Although the case for restraint might not be as compelling with those statutory issues, we believe the better approach to them also favors a limited remand to the district court to complete the task of making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the consent to [*62]  search.

On appeal, the State has asserted Bollig failed to preserve the suppression issue for review because he did not adequately object during the trial to the introduction of the text messages recovered from his smartphone. If correct, the State's position would provide an independent legal basis to uphold the district court's ruling. The Kansas Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the contemporaneous objection rule, codified in K.S.A. 60-404, requires a criminal defendant to make an evidentiary objection during trial to preserve for appellate review the district court's pretrial denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on a Fourth Amendment violation. State v. Sean, 306 Kan. 963, Syl. ¶ 1, 399 P.3d 168 (2017); State v. Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, 589-90, 285 P.3d 1026 (2012) (recognizing contemporaneous objection rule applies to pretrial denial of suppression of evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds).

The trial record shows that when the prosecutor offered the printout of the text messages as an exhibit during the trial, Bollig's lawyer immediately objected on the grounds of relevance, hearsay, and "the previous motions that I filed and have been ruled on." The objection was sufficiently detailed to preserve the suppression issue for review. See State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 373-74, 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). In presenting the point in his appellate brief, Bollig did not cite that portion of the [*63]  trial transcript. See Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 35) (appellant's brief to include record cite where "issue was raised and ruled on"). But we decline to find a waiver or forfeiture of the issue based on an omitted citation when the trial record readily yielded a sufficient objection. We simply had to look at the page of the trial transcript containing the State's offer of the messages as an exhibit. An appellate court is not, however, obligated to search the record, even cursorily, when a party provides an inadequate reference or citation.

Traffic Stop Does Not Require Suppression of Evidence

When Naomi was discharged from the Gove County Medical Center on January 31, 2014, following her miscarriage, Bollig picked her up to drive her home. In the meantime, Gove County Sheriff Allan Weber went to the hospital at the request of the KBI to get copies of Naomi's medical records. Hospital personnel told Weber they needed a release from Naomi and she had just left with Bollig. Weber went after Bollig and Naomi and intercepted them just before they got on the highway back to WaKeeney. Naomi agreed to return to the Gove County Medical Center with Weber.

On appeal, Bollig argues Weber stopped Bollig [*64]  and Naomi without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, so he unreasonably seized them in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Bollig, then, contends the purported constitutional violation tainted evidence law enforcement officers obtained after the stop. In his brief, Bollig does not identify any particular evidence that should have been suppressed as a result. But he abstractly contends he should receive a new trial as the result of the asserted constitutional violation. The failure to identify any trial evidence wrongfully admitted renders the argument legally incomplete and essentially ineffective. See State v. Tappendick, 306 Kan. 1054, Syl. ¶ 2, 400 P.3d 180 (2017) (failing to show how argument is sound amounts to no argument at all); State v. Miller, No. 109,716, 2015 WL 3632029, at *3 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (defendant fails to show prejudice requiring new trial when he identifies no specific evidence admitted at trial he claims district court should have suppressed based on Fourth Amendment violation asserted in pretrial motion). We, nonetheless, take a stab at what we think Bollig may be angling at.

To start, we assume without deciding that Weber's stop of the motor vehicle in which Bollig and Naomi were travelling amounted to an unreasonable seizure violating the Fourth Amendment. We next assume that when Naomi returned to the [*65]  Gove County Medical Center she signed a release for her medical records and may have provided some (unidentified) evidence. The release, the records, and any other evidence obtained from Naomi at least arguably could have been the product of her seizure during the motor vehicle stop and, based on our assumption, a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Notwithstanding all of those assumptions, that still does Bollig no good. A criminal defendant may not vicariously assert another person's Fourth Amendment rights to suppress evidence obtained from or through that person. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S.    , 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2022, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2014); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978); State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 476-77, 345 P.3d 258 (2015).

Bollig, however, may be arguing that the motor vehicle stop tainted later evidence obtained from him, such as his statements to Campbell and Eberle on February 19 and 20, the consent to search they obtained from him, and the actual search of his smartphone months later. But that theory doesn't work either.

Again, assuming the stop were unconstitutional, the remedy would be the suppression of any evidence obtained from Bollig as a direct result of that stop—not all evidence obtained from him at any later point in the investigation. There must be a nexus or legally recognized connection between the Fourth Amendment violation and the particular evidence to justify [*66]  suppression. United States v. Mosley, 743 F.3d 1317, 1323 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Kornegay, 410 F.3d 89, 93-94 (1st Cir. 2005). The courts commonly use the agricultural metaphor "fruit of the poisonous tree." But, as the metaphor suggests, not everything harvested in the orchard comes from the tainted tree. If the challenged evidence is sufficiently attenuated or removed from the Fourth Amendment violation, it may be used against the defendant. See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963); State v. Williams, 297 Kan. 370, 381-82, 300 P.3d 1072 (2013). A court must determine whether government agents secured the evidence "'by exploitation of'" the violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, typically requiring suppression, or whether the evidence was "'purged of the primary taint'" of that violation, typically permitting its use at trial. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488. The attenuation analysis depends upon the totality of the circumstances but focuses on: (1) the lapse of time between the Fourth Amendment violation and the acquisition of the challenged evidence; (2) material intervening circumstances proximately separating the violation from the acquisition; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the government agents' misconduct. Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04; Williams, 297 Kan. at 381.

If Bollig seeks to exclude statements he made to Campbell and Eberle on February 19 and 20 and the text messages obtained from the smartphone the officers seized on Februrary 19 as tainted fruit of the ostensibly wrongful motor [*67]  vehicle stop on January 31, he never forges a specific argument to that effect. And the circumstances demonstrate any taint from the stop had dissipated for constitutional purposes by the time he spoke with Campbell and Eberle at the WaKeeney police station.

Although Bollig was detained briefly during the motor vehicle stop, he was not questioned, accused, or arrested then. Weber fairly promptly allowed Bollig to go about his business. Nearly three weeks later, Bollig went to the police station to speak with Campbell and Eberle. At the police station, Bollig was not restrained or prevented from leaving or terminating the questioning. Indeed, Bollig left of his own accord on February 19 after signing the consents to search his smartphone and computer. We see no tangible temporal or causal connection between the motor vehicle stop and the evidence we presume Bollig means to challenge. The brief and mostly innocuous motor vehicle stop neither led to nor influenced in any constitutionally meaningful way Bollig's statements or the discovery of the text messages on his smartphone. The factual circumstances are closely aligned with those in the seminal Wong Sun case in which the Court found [*68]  no exploitation of Wong Sun's arrest without probable cause—a Fourth Amendment violation—when Wong Sun had been promptly released on his own recognizance only to appear voluntarily at a police station for questioning several days later and then made incriminating statements. The Court held Wong Sun's statements could be used against him at trial. 371 U.S. at 491.

Bollig's argument for suppression based on the motor vehicle stop comes up short both formally and substantively.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the issues Bollig has raised on appeal, we decline to grant him relief at this point. His arguments based on the rule of lenity, the sufficiency of the trial evidence and the admissibility of coconspirator statements, the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419, and the motor vehicle stop present no errors requiring relief. Bollig also contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress text messages law enforcement officers obtained in a search of his smartphone. The district court made insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow adequate appellate review. We, therefore, remand to the district court with directions, as set forth at slip op. at 36-37, for the limited purpose of making additional findings of fact and supplemental [*69]  conclusions of law on the suppression issue. An order of remand will follow. We otherwise retain jurisdiction of this case.

Remanded in part with directions.