100 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 11 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 sentences2026See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617 ("Had the State pursued an argument regarding application of the Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we would have entertained it on the merits."); State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 897 , 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) ("Despite [the Court of Appeals'] suggestion that the good-faith exception might apply, the State did not file a supplemental brief presenting the argument to us and at oral argument the attorney for the State conceded that the State was not seeking application of the exception. 2025Cummings filed a pretrial motion to suppress the drug evidence on the grounds that the search of his home was not supported by probable cause and the officers who executed the warrant were not eligible for protection under the good-faith exception articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , 82 L. | 9 | 46 |
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. 2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. | 5 | 15 |
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2020Reliance on a statute is not objectively reasonable if the Legislature "'wholly abandoned its responsibility to enact constitutional laws'" when passing the statute. 291 Kan. at 500 (quoting Krull, 480 U.S. at 355 ). 15 Returning to Cousins' case, both parties agree that State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 769-71, 449 P.3d 756 (2019), is important for our consideration because that case applied the good-faith exception to admit evidence of a breath test after consent to the test was found to be involuntary based on language in a DC-70. 2019The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule as discussed in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-50 , 107 S. Ct. 1160 , 94 L. | 5 | 13 |
State v. Hoeckgreen2 sentences2025The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the good-faith exception as the law in Kansas in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 464 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007). 2025The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the good-faith exception as the law in Kansas in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 464 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007). | 4 | 13 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021See Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (excluding recurring or systemic negligence from the good- faith exception); Evans, 514 U.S. at 17 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("Surely it would not be reasonable for the police to rely . . . on a recordkeeping system . . . that routinely leads to false arrests."); Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 604 , 126 U.S. 586 , 165 L. 2018The United States Supreme Court found law enforcement's reliance on an erroneously unrecalled warrant was not deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, and applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 555 U.S. at 147 -48 . | 4 | 5 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2026Pennington claims that the State's failure to raise the good-faith exception before the district court constitutes an affirmative waiver of the issue on appeal, citing State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). 2026Pennington claims that the State's failure to raise the good-faith exception before the district court constitutes an affirmative waiver of the issue on appeal, citing State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). | 3 | 8 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2002Doile, 244 Kan. at 502 . *298 However, in Doile , the court quoted the following language from Leon , as evidence of a minimum probable cause requirement: “ ‘[Reviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not “provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. 1990Many objections to a good-faith exception assume that the exception will turn on the subjective good faith of individual officers. ‘Grounding the modification in objective reasonableness, however, retains the value of the exclusionary rule as an incentive for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct themselves in accord with the Fourth Amendment.’ Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S., at 261, n. 15 (White, J., concurring in judgment); see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S., at 221 (Stevens, J., concurring). | 3 | 3 |
Arizona v. Evansgreen2 sentences2021See Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (excluding recurring or systemic negligence from the good- faith exception); Evans, 514 U.S. at 17 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("Surely it would not be reasonable for the police to rely . . . on a recordkeeping system . . . that routinely leads to false arrests."); Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 604 , 126 U.S. 586 , 165 L. 2004Furthermore, the good faith exception for search warrants has been extended to arrest warrants by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 131 L. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Karsongreen2 sentences2014App. 2d 306 , 235 P.3d 1260 (2010), aff'd 297 Kan. 634 , 304 P.3d 317 (2013), which the State cites as authority, recognized a good-faith exception based on the Belton line of cases. 2014App. 2d 306 , 235 P.3d 1260 (2010), aff'd 297 Kan. 634 , 304 P.3d 317 (2013), which the State cites as authority, recognized a good-faith exception based on the Belton line of cases. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Carltongreen2 sentences2016State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, 646 , 304 P.3d 323 (2013). 2016State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, 646 , 304 P.3d 323 (2013). | 2 | 3 |
| United States v. Danhauergreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. McCanegreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Probstgreen2 sentences2007In State v. Probst, 247 Kan. 196 , 795 P.2d 393 (1990), this court again addressed the good faith exception after determining that the contested affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for issuing a search warrant for defendant’s home. 2007In State v. Probst, 247 Kan. 196 , 795 P.2d 393 (1990), this court again addressed the good faith exception after determining that the contested affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for issuing a search warrant for defendant’s home. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2013To qualify for the good-faith exception, there needs to be objectively reasonable rebanee on the statute. 297 Kan. 229 , Syl. ¶ 5. 2013Daniel, 291 Kan. at 505 ; see also Dennis, 297 Kan. 229 , Syl. ¶ 5 (officer’s subjective understanding or articulation of K.S.A. 22-2501 as the legal basis for a search incident to arrest was not determinative of whether there was objectively reasonable reliance on that statute in order to qualify for the good-faith exception articulated in Daniel). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 771, 449 P.3d 756 (2019) (Luckert, J., concurring) (questioning "whether Kansas should continue to apply the good-faith exception in lockstep with federal caselaw"); see also State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 772-73 , 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (reiterating his disapproval of Daniel's adopting Krull because it allows police to perform a judiciary function of interpreting statutes). 2020Reliance on a statute is not objectively reasonable if the Legislature "'wholly abandoned its responsibility to enact constitutional laws'" when passing the statute. 291 Kan. at 500 (quoting Krull, 480 U.S. at 355 ). 15 Returning to Cousins' case, both parties agree that State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 769-71, 449 P.3d 756 (2019), is important for our consideration because that case applied the good-faith exception to admit evidence of a breath test after consent to the test was found to be involuntary based on language in a DC-70. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Necegreen2 sentences2026See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617 ("Had the State pursued an argument regarding application of the Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we would have entertained it on the merits."); State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 897 , 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) ("Despite [the Court of Appeals'] suggestion that the good-faith exception might apply, the State did not file a supplemental brief presenting the argument to us and at oral argument the attorney for the State conceded that the State was not seeking application of the exception. 2026See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617 ("Had the State pursued an argument regarding application of the Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we would have entertained it on the merits."); State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 897 , 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) ("Despite [the Court of Appeals'] suggestion that the good-faith exception might apply, the State did not file a supplemental brief presenting the argument to us and at oral argument the attorney for the State conceded that the State was not seeking application of the exception. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences2026In State v. Schmidt, 53 Kan. 2026App. 2d 225, 233 , 385 P.3d 936 (2016), our court held that "the State can invoke the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for the first time on appeal because the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law based on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case." Similarly in State v. Kraemer, 52 Kan. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Althausgreen2 sentences2025State v. Althaus, 49 Kan. 2014Application of the good-faith exception presumes the law enforcement officer involved in a particular case has a reasonable knowledge of what the law prohibits. “ ‘Grounding the modification [of the exclusionary rule] in objective reasonableness, however, retains the value of the exclusionary rule as an incentive for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct themselves in accord with the Fourth Amendment. [Citation omitted.]’ ” Leon, 468 U.S. at 919 n.20; see Althaus, 49 Kan. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Pettaygreen2 sentences2021See State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 771, 449 P.3d 756 (2019) (Luckert, J., concurring) (questioning "whether Kansas should continue to apply the good-faith exception in lockstep with federal caselaw"); see also State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 772-73 , 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (reiterating his disapproval of Daniel's adopting Krull because it allows police to perform a judiciary function of interpreting statutes). 2021See State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 771, 449 P.3d 756 (2019) (Luckert, J., concurring) (questioning "whether Kansas should continue to apply the good-faith exception in lockstep with federal caselaw"); see also State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 772-73 , 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (reiterating his disapproval of Daniel's adopting Krull because it allows police to perform a judiciary function of interpreting statutes). | 1 | 3 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013But it is unnecessary for us to review the validity of that analysis because after Dennis was decided, the United States Supreme Court released Davis, 131 S. Ct. at 2429 , in which it held that a good-faith exception for Fourth Amendment purposes applied based on an officers objectively reasonable reliance on binding federal court precedent in the jurisdiction in which the search occurred. 2011After our Supreme Court applied the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Daniel , the United States Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S. Ct. 2419 , 180 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Karsongreen2 sentences2014App. 2d 306 , 235 P.3d 1260 (2010), aff'd 297 Kan. 634 , 304 P.3d 317 (2013), which the State cites as authority, recognized a good-faith exception based on the Belton line of cases. 2013State v. Karson, 44 Kan. | 1 | 3 |
St. Catherine Hospital of Garden City v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013Catherine Hospital of Garden City v. Rodriguez, 25 Kan. 2001App. 2d 763, 765, 971 P.2d 754 (1998) (“We agree that whether the good faith standard was met is a question of fact.”). | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Dennisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| McGee v. Connecticutgreen | 1 | 2 |
State v. Conngreen2 sentences2014See State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004); State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16, 22 , 910 P.2d 180 (1996). 2014See State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004); State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16, 22 , 910 P.2d 180 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Robert Kelly Bishopgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Augustinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Boryk v. Aircraft Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Russiangreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Chaka Castrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wycoffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Arnettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Neighborsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fairchild v. Lockhartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 1759green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hensleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jim Lowery v. Rondle Anderson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Corcoran v. Bussgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Parker
green
2 sentences2010The majority acknowledges that, to date, this state has only recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule which derived from United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). 2008In its brief, the State makes no argument regarding application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). | 17 | 1990–2021 |
State v. Doile
green
2 sentences2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 12 | 1990–2021 |
State v. Longbine
green
2 sentences2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 9 | 1999–2021 |
Horton v. California
green
2 sentences2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. 2021Our 8 Supreme Court adopted and applied Leon's holding without modification in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463-64 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), disapproving two of its prior cases that inadvertently departed from Leon by requiring minimum probable cause to apply the good-faith exception: State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), and State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S. Ct. 2301 , 110 L. | 7 | 1999–2021 |
State v. Ratzlaff
green
2 sentences2007The district court had based its ultimate conclusion that the good faith exception did not apply on the finding that there was “so little indicia of probable cause contained in the warrant [affidavit] that it was entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the warrant valid [Leons fourth limitation.]” 255 Kan. at 755 . 2007However, the court did not answer this question explicitly; rather, the Ratzlaff opinion summarily concluded that “the search of defendant’s residence [did] not fall within the good faith exception as expressed in Leon , and thus the *459 evidence obtained as a result of the search must be suppressed.” 255 Kan. at 755 . | 4 | 2007–2020 |
Spivey v. Safeco Insurance
green
2 sentences2004If ambiguities in coverage, including exclusionary clauses, are judicially determined against the insurer, the ultimate result controls the insurer’s duty to defend. [Citation omitted.]” 254 Kan. at 245-46 . 1999If ambiguities in coverage, including exclusionary clauses, are judicially determined against the insurer, the ultimate result controls the insurer’s duty to defend. [Citation omitted.]” 254 Kan. at 245-46 . | 3 | 1998–2004 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. 2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. | 2 | 2020–2022 |
State v. Oram
green
2 sentences2021State v. Oram, 46 Kan. 2020The factual underpinnings for the district court's ruling must be supported by substantial competent evidence, "while the ultimate legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts will be examined de novo." State v. Zwickl, 306 10 Kan. 286 , Syl. ¶ 4, 393 P.3d 621 (2017). "'In determining whether to apply the exclusionary rule, a court should examine whether such application will advance the deterrent objective of the rule.'" State v. Oram, 46 Kan. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004); State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16, 22 , 910 P.2d 180 (1996). 2014See State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004); State v. Anderson, 259 Kan. 16, 22 , 910 P.2d 180 (1996). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
| State v. Carlton green | 2 | 2010–2013 |
| South Street Seaport Museum v. McCarthy green | 2 | 2008–2010 |
| State v. Unruh green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Kraemer green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Illinois v. Caballes green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Powell green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Jarmell Mayweather green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Robbins v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matzen v. Cities Service Oil Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Waechter v. Amoco Production Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Lightcap v. Mobil Oil Corporation green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| United States v. Calandra green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansas green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Hudson v. Michigan green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| United States v. Robert Starnes, Jr. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Goff green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| United States v. James Howard Laughton green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Perkins green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Meitler green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Johnson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Merrill green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Alexander v. California green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Declerck green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Germaine Helton green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Vandevelde green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.