In Re Holmberg, 218 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Holmberg, 218 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“when the responses of the detainee and the circumstances give rise to suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden the inquiry and satisfy those suspicions, graduating his or her responses to the demands of the situation.”
57 citation events (57 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Stevenson (kanctapp, 2011-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Stevenson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Kan. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when the responses of the detainee and the circumstances give rise to suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden the inquiry and satisfy those suspicions, graduating his or her responses to the demands of the situation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jenkins
Conn. · 2010 · confidence medium
See People v. Harris, supra, 228 Ill.2d at 240 , 319 Ill.Dec. 823 , 886 N.E.2d 947 ; see also United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir.2006) ("[a]lthough Holt held that further questioning is justifiable only if it is reasonable in relation to the initial purpose of the traffic stop ... the scope of this holding has been limited by the Supreme Court's decision in Muehler " [citation omitted]); United States v. Turvin, supra, 517 F.3d at 1099-1100 (noting that Muehler had "overruled" Ninth Circuit case law "that required police officers to have reasonable suspicion to as…
cited Cited "see" State v. Kihonge
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 995-96 , 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
cited Cited "see" State v. Reisinger
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 985 , 218 P.3d 801 (2009). 4 However, in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 , 111 S. Ct. 1547 , 113 L.
cited Cited "see" State v. Daniels
Kan. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock , 289 Kan. 980 , 985, 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
examined Cited "see" State v. Glover (3×)
Kan. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock , 289 Kan. 980 , 985, 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
cited Cited "see" City of Overland Park v. Lull
Kan. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 985 , 218 P.3d 801 (2009). 4 The officer did not substantially comply with the notice statute.
cited Cited "see" City of Overland Park v. Lull
Kan. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 985 , 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
cited Cited "see" State v. Jones
Kan. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 995-96 , 218 P.3d 801 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Leyva (2×)
N.M. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980 , 218 P.3d 801, 807-08 (2009). {21} This Court also has “refuse[d] to draw a bright-line, temporal cut-off point” for an officer’s actions during a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of James M. Holmberg, Respondent
Bar Docket 12134.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Nov 5, 2009.
218 P.3d 801
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Kansas (1)

In a letter signed on October 26, 2009, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent James M. Holmberg of Kansas City, Kansas, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 353).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a panel hearing was pending on three separate complaints in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 211 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321). The formal complaints concern allegations of misconduct that Holmberg violated Rules 1.3 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 426) (lack of diligence), 1.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 443) (lack of reasonable communication), 5.5 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 580) (unlawful practice of law while law license suspended) and 8.4(d) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 211(b).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that James M. Holmberg be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of James M. Holmberg from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the official Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed[*979] to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361).

Dated this 5th day of November, 2009.