Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. WARRIORgreen2 sentences2020"But the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings." Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 . 2020"But the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings." Warrior, 20 294 Kan. at 503 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Jacquesgreen1 sentence2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Murphygreen2 sentences2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. 2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bridges
green
2 sentences2022However, "the fact that a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings." State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1010 , 306 P. 3d 244 (2013). 2022However, "the fact that a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings." State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1010 , 306 P. 3d 244 (2013). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Deal
green
2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe 2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Trussell
green
2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe 2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe 2020Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (being questioned as a suspect or in a police station does not alone necessarily trigger need for Miranda warnings); see also Warrior, 294 Kan. at 503 (the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 32 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (acknowledging that any one of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, standing alone, might not have led the court to conclude the statements were coerced); State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 507-08 , 213 P.3d 1052 (2009) (citing cases in which defe | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Costa
green
2 sentences2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. 2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Bohanan
green
2 sentences2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. 2012State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.