warrant requirement in Kansas

2026"Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a warrantless entry into a private dwelling by law enforcement officers is considered unreasonable and invalid unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." Neighbors, 299 Kan. at 239 .

2019Analysis Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, "a warrantless entry into a private dwelling by law enforcement officers is considered unreasonable and invalid unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 239 , 328 P.3d 1081 (2014); see Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403-04 , 126 S. Ct. 1943 , 164 L.

2022Applicable Law and Analysis "'[A] warrantless search by a police officer is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the State can fit the search within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Doelz, 309 Kan. 133, 140 , 432 P.3d 669 (2019).

2022Applicable Law and Analysis "'[A] warrantless search by a police officer is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the State can fit the search within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Doelz, 309 Kan. 133, 140 , 432 P.3d 669 (2019).

2022Reasonable suspicion existed to support an investigatory stop Under one exception to the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an officer may "stop and briefly detain an individual without a warrant when the officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion, based in fact, that the detained person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime." State v. Sanders, 310 Kan. 279 , 286, 445 P.3d 1144 (2019); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.

2022Reasonable suspicion existed to support an investigatory stop Under one exception to the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an officer may "stop and briefly detain an individual without a warrant when the officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion, based in fact, that the detained person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime." State v. Sanders, 310 Kan. 279 , 286, 445 P.3d 1144 (2019); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.

2009See Mendez, 275 Kan. at 428-29 (finding officers’ warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment did not fall under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement because there was no indication that anyone inside the apartment needed emergency assistance). *765 Other state and federal courts that have considered similar situations — where a defendant sought to suppress evidence relating to his or her violence or threatened violence toward police officers subsequent to an unlawful search or seizure or a warrandess entry — have generally held that evidence of a separate, independent

2004A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless it meets one of several recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement: “ ‘consent; search incident to a lawful arrest; stop and frisk; probable cause to search accompanied by exigent circumstances, of which hot pursuit is one example; the emergency doctrine; inventory searches; plain view; and administrative searches of closely regulated businesses.’ [Citations omitted.]” Mendez, 275 Kan. at 420 -21 (quoting State v. Baughman, 29 Kan.

2020Then, in Birchfield, the United States Supreme Court held that warrantless breath tests are constitutionally permissible under the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, and therefore such searches are a categorical exception to the warrant requirement. 136 S. Ct. at 2185 .

2020The search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement is applied categorically, rather than on a case-by-case basis. 136 S. Ct. at 2176 .

2018See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed. 2d 854 (1973) ; State v. Nece , 303 Kan. 888 , 892, 367 P.3d 1260 (2016), aff'd on reh'g 306 Kan. 679 , 396 P.3d 709 (2017).

1975Ed. 2d 854 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 .) It has been further stated that these exceptions to the warrant requirement have been “jealously and carefully drawn” (Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493 , 2 L.

2022Warrantless searches and seizures, including warrantless entries into private dwellings, are per se unreasonable unless they fall 20 within recognized exception to the warrant requirement. 299 Kan. at 239; State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50, 55 , 272 P.3d 34 (2012).

2022Warrantless searches and seizures, including warrantless entries into private dwellings, are per se unreasonable unless they fall 20 within recognized exception to the warrant requirement. 299 Kan. at 239; State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50, 55 , 272 P.3d 34 (2012).

2018If law enforcement officers do not have a warrant, "a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." 134 S.Ct. at 2482 .

2016But the warrant requirement is “not merely ‘an inconvenience to be somehow “weighed” against the claims of police efficiency.’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. _ , 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2493 , 189 L.

2020State v. Ramirez, 278 Kan. 402, 404-05 , 100 P.3d 94 (2004).

2020State v. Ramirez, 278 Kan. 402, 404-05 , 100 P.3d 94 (2004).

2018Where a container is involved, complying with the warrant requirement or one of its well-delineated exceptions is required because "the Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view." United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 , 822-23, 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).

2018Where a container is involved, complying with the warrant requirement or one of its well-delineated exceptions is required because "the Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view." United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 , 822-23, 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).

2016This limitation on the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement ‘ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy.’ Id.

2016This limitation on the search-incident-to-arrest 14 exception to the warrant requirement 'ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy.' Id.

2020State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 776 , 166 P.3d 1015 (2007).

2018One exception to the warrant requirement is when the suspect consents to the search. 284 Kan. at 776 .

2020Ed. 2d 560 (2016); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 910 , 368 P.3d 342 (2016) (Ryce I), aff'd on reh'g 306 Kan. 682 , 396 P.3d 711 (2017) (Ryce II). "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within an exception to the warrant requirement." Hubbard, 309 Kan. at 33.

2020Ed. 2d 560 (2016); State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 910 , 368 P.3d 342 (2016) (Ryce I), aff'd on reh'g 306 Kan. 682 , 396 P.3d 711 (2017) (Ryce II). "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within an exception to the warrant requirement." Hubbard, 309 Kan. at 33.

2014United States Supreme Court Emergency Aid Exception Cases The United States Supreme Court first recognized emergency aid as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L.

2014United States Supreme Court Emergency Aid Exception Cases The United States Supreme Court first recognized emergency aid as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L.

1985Specifically, defendant alleges the police acted beyond the scope of the search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the search did not fall within the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement as set out in State v. Galloway, 232 Kan. 87, 94 , 652 P.2d 673 (1982).

1985Specifically, defendant alleges the police acted beyond the scope of the search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the search did not fall within the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement as set out in State v. Galloway, 232 Kan. 87, 94 , 652 P.2d 673 (1982).

2017We will discuss the statutory provisions in more detail, but at this point we simply summarize "[o]ur caselaw[, which] has explained that a test taken after the driver receives the advisory required by 8-1001(k) 'is the product of the consent exception to the warrant requirement.'" Ryce I, 303 Kan. at 907 -08 (quoting State v. Johnson, 297 Kan. 210 , Syl. ¶ 8, 301 P.3d 287 [2013]).

2017We will discuss the statutory provisions in more detail, but at this point we simply summarize "[o]ur caselaw[, which] has explained that a test taken after the driver receives the advisory required by 8-1001(k) 'is the product of the consent exception to the warrant requirement.'" Ryce I, 303 Kan. at 907 -08 (quoting State v. Johnson, 297 Kan. 210 , Syl. ¶ 8, 301 P.3d 287 [2013]).

2022But Rupnick stands for the proposition that "a valid warrant is necessary to search the hard drive of a suspect's personal computer." 280 Kan. at 732 .

2008State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720, 727 , 125 P.3d 541 (2005).

2020App. 2d 372, 379 , 415 P.3d 460 (2018) (quoting Ryce, 306 Kan. at 690- 91), this court acknowledged that "the search-incident-to-arrest exception is a 'categorical exception to the warrant requirement permitting an officer to demand a breath test from a person arrested for a DUI violation.'" In Perkins, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence before the officer administered an evidentiary breath test.

2020See State v. Perkins, 55 Kan.

2020See State v. Ritchey, 56 Kan.

2020App. 2d 530, 536 , 432 P.3d 99 (2018) (finding the search incident-to-lawful-arrest exception did not apply when officers were not searching Ritchley's purse for protection or to preserve evidence, and Ritchley had no access to her purse at the time.) 5 The State does not assert that any other exception to the warrant requirement applies to the search of the backpack.