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.
14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2016 0 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 sentences2015See State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 700 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , 82 L. 2015See State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 700 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , 82 L. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2016State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2114 (2011). 2016State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2114 (2011). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 700 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , 82 L. 2015See State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 700 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , 82 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). 2014See State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 617-18 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McGee v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence2016State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2114 (2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Declerck
green
1 sentence2015Thus, there were insufficient facts upon which to evaluate whether this case merited application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionaiy rule. 49 Kan. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davis v. United States
green
2 sentences2014The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is “to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 , 131 S. Ct. 2419 , 180 L. 2014The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is “to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 , 131 S. Ct. 2419 , 180 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2013We impose the exclusionaiy rule, for example, “ ’to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effective available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L. 2013We impose the exclusionaiy rule, for example, “ ’to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effective available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Sodders
green
1 sentence2013As Vrabel points out, in Sodders the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to suppress evidence seized by two Overland Park detectives who searched the defendant’s apartment outside their jurisdiction in Lenexa in violation of 22-2401a. 255 Kan. at 84-85 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2013As stated above, under that test, we consider (1) the time elapsed between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. 285 Kan. at 1003 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2013As stated above, under that test, we consider (1) the time elapsed between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. 285 Kan. at 1003 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hoeck
green
2 sentences2013Citing State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), Judge Rose held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionaiy rule should apply because the warrant and affidavit had enough “indicia of probable cause” that a law enforcement officer’s reliance on the legal sufficiency of the warrant—once a judge signed it—would not have been entirely unreasonable. 2013Citing State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441 , 163 P.3d 252 (2007), Judge Rose held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionaiy rule should apply because the warrant and affidavit had enough “indicia of probable cause” that a law enforcement officer’s reliance on the legal sufficiency of the warrant—once a judge signed it—would not have been entirely unreasonable. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Malm
green
2 sentences2008As a result, the suppression of evidence by officers acting in good faith in reasonable rebanee on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate does not further the purpose of the exclusionaiy rule under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 468 U.S. at 916-17 ; State v. Malm, 37 Kan. 2008App. 2d 532, 547 , 154 P.3d 1154 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 949 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.