In re Brooks, 345 P.3d 258 (Kan. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Brooks, 345 P.3d 258 (Kan. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.' herring v. united states , 555 u.s. 135 , 144, 129 s. ct. 695 , 172 l. ed. 2d 496 . ⚠ not in text
87 citation events (87 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Tatro (kan, 2019-07-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Tatro
Kan. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.' herring v. united states , 555 u.s. 135 , 144, 129 s. ct. 695 , 172 l. ed. 2d 496 .
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Sanders
Kan. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.' herring v. united states, 555 u.s. 135, 144 , 129 s. ct. 695 , 172 l. ed. 2d 496 .
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Sanders
Kan. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.' herring v. united states , 555 u.s. 135 , 144, 129 s. ct. 695 , 172 l. ed. 2d 496 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. McCullough
Kan. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 472 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (holding appellate court is "free to reach a de novo conclusion" about whether "factors individually and collectively" suggested that constitutional protections apply, but must "first apply a substantial competent evidence standard to the district court's factual findings").
cited Cited "see" State v. Chezem
Kan. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Brown
Kan. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. 19 Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 477 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (recognizing that social guests do not have property rights that can serve as basis for standing to object to search).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Williams
Kan. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Talkington , 301 Kan. 453 , 477, 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (recognizing that social guests do not have property rights that can serve as a basis for standing to object to a search).
examined Cited "see" State v. Dannebohm (3×)
Kan. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
State v. Robinson , 293 Kan. 1002 , 1014, 270 P.3d 1183 (2012) ; see Talkington , 301 Kan. at 461-62 , 477 , 345 P.3d 258 (" 'Where the subjective expectation of privacy and its objective reasonableness are both well-established [for example, in a defendant's home], courts tend to state the conclusion of the analysis without distinguishing the two steps.' ").
discussed Cited "see" State v. Guein (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461-62 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015); State v. Karson, 44 Kan.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kihonge
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Hanke, 307 Kan. 823 , 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018); see also State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (applying this standard of review on State's appeal after motion to suppress granted).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Blake
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
"On a motion to suppress, an appellate court generally reviews the district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and reviews the ultimate legal conclusion de novo." State v. Cash, 313 Kan. 121 , 125-26, 483 P.3d 1047 (2021); see also State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (applying this standard of review on State's appeal after district court granted defendant's motion to suppress).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Scheuerman
Kan. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 473-83 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015) (discussing the development of the "social guest" standing theory).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. McClung
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 476-77 , 345 P.3d 258 (2015).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Yehlen D. Brooks, f/k/a Mary Yehlen Brooks
Bar Docket No. 14490.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Mar 2, 2015.
345 P.3d 258
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 89%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Kansas (3)

In a letter signed February 14, 2015, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Yehlen D. Brooks, f/k/a Maiy Yehlen Brooks, an attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 403).

At the time the respondent surrendered her license, a formal hearing was pending regarding five docketed disciplinary complaints filed in connection with her practice of immigration law in California. The complaints alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 456) (competence); 1.3 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 475) (diligence); 1.4 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) (communication); 1.5 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 515) (fees); 1.15 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 567) (safekeeping property); 1.16 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 583) (termination of representation); 8.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) (bar admission and disciplinary matters); and 8.4 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (misconduct).

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

It is THEREFORE ordered that Yehlen D. Brooks, f/k/a Mary Yehlen Brooks, be and she is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and her license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It is further ordered that tire Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Yehlen D. Brooks, f/k/a Mary Yehlen Brooks from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

[*452] It is further ORDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414).

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2015.