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.
19 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2025To do so, 'we look to the affidavit in its entirety' and determine '"whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization."' Powell, 299 Kan. at 701 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n.23). 2020Because this weighing is fact-specific, "suppression of evidence . . . should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 . 7 In Krull, the United States Supreme Court expanded the Leon good-faith exception to include an officer's reasonable reliance on an unconstitutional statute. 480 U.S. at 349 - 50. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Doilegreen2 sentences2007The court went on to hold that the search could not be saved by the Leon good faith exception. 244 Kan. at 502-03 , 769 P.2d 666 . 2007The court went on to hold that the search could not be saved by the Leon good faith exception. 244 Kan. at 502-03 , 769 P.2d 666 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2008See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (where State failed to pursue argument under Leon , our Supreme Court regarded argument as waived); see also State v. Landis, 37 Kan.App.2d 409, 423 , 156 P.3d 675 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 949 (2007) (holding that the State's failure to make an argument regarding the application of the Leon good-faith exception on appeal is deemed waived). 2008See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (where State failed to pursue argument under Leon , our Supreme Court regarded argument as waived); see also State v. Landis, 37 Kan.App.2d 409, 423 , 156 P.3d 675 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 949 (2007) (holding that the State's failure to make an argument regarding the application of the Leon good-faith exception on appeal is deemed waived). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2020The Kansas Supreme Court adopted Krull's expansion of the Leon good-faith exception to excuse a police officer's reasonable reliance on a statute in State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 500 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010). 2020The Kansas Supreme Court adopted Krull's expansion of the Leon good-faith exception to excuse a police officer's reasonable reliance on a statute in State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 500 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hoeckgreen2 sentences2008In Hoeck , however, our Supreme Court recently disapproved of this test and held: "The Leon good faith exception applies when an affidavit does not supply a substantial basis for the determination of probable cause but does provide some indicia of probable cause sufficient to render official reliance reasonable." 284 Kan. 441 , Syl. ¶ 2, 163 P.3d 252 . 2008In Hoeck , however, our Supreme Court recently disapproved of this test and held: "The Leon good faith exception applies when an affidavit does not supply a substantial basis for the determination of probable cause but does provide some indicia of probable cause sufficient to render official reliance reasonable." 284 Kan. 441 , Syl. ¶ 2, 163 P.3d 252 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Landisgreen2 sentences2008See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (where State failed to pursue argument under Leon , our Supreme Court regarded argument as waived); see also State v. Landis, 37 Kan.App.2d 409, 423 , 156 P.3d 675 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 949 (2007) (holding that the State's failure to make an argument regarding the application of the Leon good-faith exception on appeal is deemed waived). 2008See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (where State failed to pursue argument under Leon , our Supreme Court regarded argument as waived); see also State v. Landis, 37 Kan.App.2d 409, 423 , 156 P.3d 675 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 949 (2007) (holding that the State's failure to make an argument regarding the application of the Leon good-faith exception on appeal is deemed waived). | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Parkergreen1 sentence2008See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
South Street Seaport Museum v. McCarthygreen1 sentence2008See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). | 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. Powell
green
2 sentences2026We are mindful that "[t]he threshold to avoid the Leon good-faith exception is a high one." State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 701 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014). 2026We are mindful that "[t]he threshold to avoid the Leon good-faith exception is a high one." State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 701 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014). | 4 | 2020–2026 |
Illinois v. Krull
green
2 sentences2020Because this weighing is fact-specific, "suppression of evidence . . . should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 . 7 In Krull, the United States Supreme Court expanded the Leon good-faith exception to include an officer's reasonable reliance on an unconstitutional statute. 480 U.S. at 349 - 50. 2020Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-50 , 107 S. Ct. 1160 , 94 L. | 3 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Malm
green
2 sentences2025State v. Malm, 37 Kan. 2007App. 2d 532, 548 , 154 P.3d 1154 (2007) (“The court’s rea *462 sorting in Doile is somewhat curious because the Leon good faith exception is only triggered in cases where a court subsequently determines that the search warrant affidavit fails to establish a substantial basis for probable cause. | 2 | 2007–2025 |
Horton v. California
green
2 sentences2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 2 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Ratzlaff
green
2 sentences2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 2 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Longbine
green
2 sentences2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2020We disapprove any language in State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006), State v. Ratzlaff, 255 Kan. 738, 754-55 , 877 P.2d 397 (1994), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 495 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 2 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Potts
green
2 sentences2024State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687, 700 , 374 P.3d 639 (2016). 12 Verser argues his trial counsel did not make a specific and contemporaneous objection on day four of the trial that would have preserved the issue on whether the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied despite the lack of probable cause in the search warrant. 2024State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687, 700 , 374 P.3d 639 (2016). 12 Verser argues his trial counsel did not make a specific and contemporaneous objection on day four of the trial that would have preserved the issue on whether the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied despite the lack of probable cause in the search warrant. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Groh v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2016The Groh court indirectly provided guidance on how to apply that exception to the facts of this case, although Groh was a civil action for damages caused by the illegal search as opposed to a criminal action like the one we now consider In Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 , 124 S. Ct. 1284 , 157 L. 2016The Groh court indirectly provided guidance on how to apply that exception to the facts of this case, although Groh was a civil action for damages caused by the illegal search as opposed to a criminal action like the one we now consider In Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 , 124 S. Ct. 1284 , 157 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Messerschmidt v. Millender
green
2 sentences2014For this, the question is not whether the judge erred in believing there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant, the inquiry instead is whether that judge “so obviously erred that any reasonable officer would have recognized the error.” Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1250 , 182 L. 2014For this, the question is not whether the judge erred in believing there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant, the inquiry instead is whether that judge “so obviously erred that any reasonable officer would have recognized the error.” Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1250 , 182 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hemme
green
2 sentences2007This is why we have the Leon good faith exception in the first place.”); State v. Hemme, 15 Kan. 2007This is why we have the Leon good faith exception in the first place.”); State v. Hemme, 15 Kan. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2007In State v. Jackson, 30 Kan. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Probst
green
2 sentences2007Under the Leon good faith exception, evidence should not be excluded unless it is shown: “ ‘(1) that the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) that the judge or magistrate wholly abandoned his or her neutral and detached role; (3) that the warrant was so lacking in specificity that die officers could not determine the place to be searched or the things to be seized; or (4) that there was so little indicia of probable cause contained in the warrant that it was entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the warrant valid. [Citation omit 2007Under the Leon good faith exception, evidence should not be excluded unless it is shown: “ ‘(1) that the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) that the judge or magistrate wholly abandoned his or her neutral and detached role; (3) that the warrant was so lacking in specificity that die officers could not determine the place to be searched or the things to be seized; or (4) that there was so little indicia of probable cause contained in the warrant that it was entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the warrant valid. [Citation omit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Burche v. Degussa Carbon Black Co.
green
1 sentence2007App. 2d 198, 204 , 806 P.2d 472 , rev. denied 248 Kan. 998 , cert. denied 502 U.S. 865 (1991) (noting that the Doile court added a probable cause requirement to Leon’s good faith exception by quoting “some preliminary probable cause language from earlier in the Leon opinion”). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hendricks
green
1 sentence2007Leon, 468 U.S. at 916 .” State v. Hendricks, 31 Kan. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.