15 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 5 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. Jacquesgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Jacques, 225 Kan. 38, 44 , 587 P.2d 861 (1978). 2026See State v. Jacques, 225 Kan. 38, 44 , 587 P.2d 861 (1978). | 4 | 6 |
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2022See 438 U.S. at 155-56 . 7 Jackson thus established no basis to support a Franks motion. 2021Knopp moved to suppress the blood sample evidence and sought what is known as a "Franks hearing." In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. | 3 | 6 |
State v. Jensengreen2 sentences2001We must note, however, that a Franks hearing “applies only where the affiant is a government agent and the defendant’s challenge is supported by sworn allegations that false statements made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth were included in the affidavit, and the false or reckless statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 789 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 519 U.S. 948 (1996). 2001We must note, however, that a Franks hearing “applies only where the affiant is a government agent and the defendant’s challenge is supported by sworn allegations that false statements made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth were included in the affidavit, and the false or reckless statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 789 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 519 U.S. 948 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Shivelygreen2 sentences2008App.2d 302 , Syl. ¶ 5, 987 P.2d 1119 (1999), aff'd 268 Kan. 589 , 999 P.2d 259 (2000) ("When a defendant fails to challenge the honesty of the information in a search warrant affidavit by offering proof under oath and requesting a Franks hearing, he or she cannot challenge on the appeal the honesty of the statements in the affidavit as presented to the magistrate."). 2008App.2d 302 , Syl. ¶ 5, 987 P.2d 1119 (1999), aff'd 268 Kan. 589 , 999 P.2d 259 (2000) ("When a defendant fails to challenge the honesty of the information in a search warrant affidavit by offering proof under oath and requesting a Franks hearing, he or she cannot challenge on the appeal the honesty of the statements in the affidavit as presented to the magistrate."). | 1 | 1 |
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc.green2 sentences1999See State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 787 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 136 L. 1999See State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 787 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 136 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Parnell Bowlinggreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., United States v. Bowling, 351 F.2d 236, 241-42 (6th Cir. 1965); Annot. 5 A.L.R. 394 (1949). 1996See, e.g., United States v. Bowling, 351 F.2d 236, 241-42 (6th Cir. 1965); Annot. 5 A.L.R. 394 (1949). | 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. Adams
green
2 sentences2024Under the exception, "an evidentiary hearing is required if a defendant shows by a sworn allegation that an affidavit in support of a search warrant is unreliable in that it: (1) contains statements that are material to the issuance of the search warrant because the statements were necessary to find probable cause and (2) the material statements (a) were a deliberate falsehood, (b) were made in reckless disregard for the truth, or (c) deliberately omitted a material fact." State v. Adams, 294 Kan. 171, 179 , 273 P.3d 718 (2012). 10 A Franks motion is brought by the party against whom a search 2024Under the exception, "an evidentiary hearing is required if a defendant shows by a sworn allegation that an affidavit in support of a search warrant is unreliable in that it: (1) contains statements that are material to the issuance of the search warrant because the statements were necessary to find probable cause and (2) the material statements (a) were a deliberate falsehood, (b) were made in reckless disregard for the truth, or (c) deliberately omitted a material fact." State v. Adams, 294 Kan. 171, 179 , 273 P.3d 718 (2012). 10 A Franks motion is brought by the party against whom a search | 4 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Landis
green
2 sentences2026Thus Hoffman had no factual basis for filing a Franks motion. 10 Dehart relies on State v. Landis, 37 Kan. 2026App. 2d 409 , 156 P.3d 675 (2007). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Schoonover
green
2 sentences2012State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 129 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006); State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 513 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006). 2012State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 129 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006); State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 513 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Francis
green
2 sentences2012State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 129 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006); State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 513 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006). 2012State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 129 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006); State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 513 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Shively
green
2 sentences2008App.2d 302 , Syl. ¶ 5, 987 P.2d 1119 (1999), aff'd 268 Kan. 589 , 999 P.2d 259 (2000) ("When a defendant fails to challenge the honesty of the information in a search warrant affidavit by offering proof under oath and requesting a Franks hearing, he or she cannot challenge on the appeal the honesty of the statements in the affidavit as presented to the magistrate."). 2008App.2d 302 , Syl. ¶ 5, 987 P.2d 1119 (1999), aff'd 268 Kan. 589 , 999 P.2d 259 (2000) ("When a defendant fails to challenge the honesty of the information in a search warrant affidavit by offering proof under oath and requesting a Franks hearing, he or she cannot challenge on the appeal the honesty of the statements in the affidavit as presented to the magistrate."). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Bowen
green
2 sentences2003After the hearing, the trial court still must decide if the facts showed *142 probable cause to issue the warrant. [Citation omitted.]” Bowen, 27 Kan. 2003After the hearing, the trial court still must decide if the facts showed *142 probable cause to issue the warrant. [Citation omitted.]” Bowen, 27 Kan. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Malley v. Briggs
green
2 sentences2001In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343 , 89 L. 2001In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343 , 89 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences2001In making its determination, a reviewing court is required to pay great deference to the issuing magistrate’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, and such after-the-fact scrutinizing should not take the form of a de novo review.” State v. Gilbert, 256 Kan. 419 , Syl. ¶ 4, 886 P.2d 365 (1994). 2001In making its determination, a reviewing court is required to pay great deference to the issuing magistrate’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, and such after-the-fact scrutinizing should not take the form of a de novo review.” State v. Gilbert, 256 Kan. 419 , Syl. ¶ 4, 886 P.2d 365 (1994). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Schledwitz v. United States
green
2 sentences2001We must note, however, that a Franks hearing “applies only where the affiant is a government agent and the defendant’s challenge is supported by sworn allegations that false statements made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth were included in the affidavit, and the false or reckless statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 789 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 519 U.S. 948 (1996). 2001We must note, however, that a Franks hearing “applies only where the affiant is a government agent and the defendant’s challenge is supported by sworn allegations that false statements made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth were included in the affidavit, and the false or reckless statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 789 , 915 P.2d 109 , cert. denied 519 U.S. 948 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences2001State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 126 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). 2001State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 126 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1996Franks does not apply in such instances because there exists no governmental misconduct that could be detected or deterred by a Franks hearing.” 54 Wash. App. at 214-15 . 1996Franks does not apply in such instances because there exists no governmental misconduct that could be detected or deterred by a Franks hearing.” 54 Wash. App. at 214-15 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Thetford
green
2 sentences1996State v. Thetford, 109 Wn.2d 392, 398 , 745 P.2d 496 (1987) (a/k/a a Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 , 57 L. 1996State v. Thetford, 109 Wn.2d 392, 398 , 745 P.2d 496 (1987) (a/k/a a Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 , 57 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.