KIMBALL -- A Kimball woman will be arraigned in District Court following her preliminary hearing for a felony and misdemeanor charge.

Kimberly Randles, 52, of Kimball and her attorney Audrey Long appeared in County Court via Zoom May 22 regarding her Class 4 Felony possession of a controlled substance and an infraction of use/possession of drug paraphernalia. 

After both sides presented evidence and arguments regarding the charges, Kimball County Judge Randin Roland ruled that the state presented enough evidence to move the case forward to District Court. Randles’ next court appearance will be June 4. 

Sheriff David Hottell testified in court that he and two other officers first searched Randles’ residence on March 9 after receiving a search warrant for stolen property. 

While the officers were in the residence, Hottell said they noticed a pipe with residue in it, so they applied for a second warrant to search for drug paraphernalia and any other illegal substances. 

After the warrant was granted, Hottell said he and the officers began searching for any other illegal substances. They found three glass pipes with residue that they believed to be methamphetamine, a container that had what they suspected to be THC wax, and a container with a green, leafy substance.

The officers found the substances in the room they say she confirmed she was living in. 

Hottell said he performed two field tests on one of the glass pipes which tested positive for methamphetamine both times. They did not perform field tests on any of the other containers found.  

Hottell also testified that during the initial search, Randles said they would find a dirty pipe in the house, and after finding the rest of the contraband, she admitted to the officers that the pipes were hers. 

Long said that there is no evidence of Randles admitting to the possession of the contraband, after which Hottell said that his body cam was on and recording during the search. To his knowledge, the other officers had their body cams on as well, but he did not specifically ask to see the footage. 

Long went on to review the paperwork of the warrants. 

The application for the first warrant was submitted at 12:51 p.m. on March 9, and about 10 minutes later, it was granted.

The application for the second search warrant was submitted at 3:38 p.m. the same day and was approved at 3:43 p.m.

On the Sheriff's Return and Inventory paperwork, however, both searches were timestamped at 2:47 p.m., indicating that the second search would have been done before it was legally granted. 

“Explain to me how you seized property from my client without having the authority to do it,” Long said. 

Hottell replied that he mistakenly put the wrong time on the Return and Inventory Paperwork for the second search; it should have stated that the search was conducted at 4:47 p.m. 

Hottell deeply apologized for making the mistake and firmly stated that they waited until the warrant was approved to conduct the second search. 

Long requested that the case be dismissed because she believes the discrepancies indicate that the second search was done unlawfully and was signed off after the fact.