public safety exception in Kansas

14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 4 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. McFeetersgreen kanctapp · 2015 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2026 2 sentences 2026In State v. McFeeters, 52 Kan. 2020A district court's findings under the public safety exception must explicitly state how the public's safety would be jeopardized by an intermediate sanction. 52 Kan.	1	3
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2024 2 sentences 2024The public safety exception was first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S. Ct. 2523 , 37 L. 2024The public safety exception was first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S. Ct. 2523 , 37 L.	1	2
State v. Ellisgreen kan · 2020 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024In that case, we held that a warrantless traffic stop can be justified for public safety reasons "if the safety reasons are based upon specific and articulable facts." Vistuba, 251 Kan. at 824 ; see State v. Ellis, 311 Kan. 925 , 929-30, 469 P.3d 65 (2020).	1	1
State v. Walkergreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 604-05 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (the independent police investigation, when combined with the defendant’s admissible statements, would have uncovered the vehicle used in the crime); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7-8 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990) (apart from the public safety exception, the gun would have been discovered approximately 2 hours later pursuant to a valid search warrant); State v. Waddell, 14 Kan. 2014See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 604-05 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (the independent police investigation, when combined with the defendant’s admissible statements, would have uncovered the vehicle used in the crime); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7-8 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990) (apart from the public safety exception, the gun would have been discovered approximately 2 hours later pursuant to a valid search warrant); State v. Waddell, 14 Kan.	1	1
United States v. Lackeygreen ca10 · 2003 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011U.S. v. Lackey, 334 F.3d 1224, 1226 (10th Cir. 2003) (officer’s pr e-Miranda question about the presence of guns or sharp objects on the defendant’s person was proper under the public safety exception in Quarles); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 332 (5th Cir. 1998) (asking the defendant whether he had any needles in his pockets that could injure them during their pat-down was for protection of officers and did not constitute interrogation under Miranda and Quarles).	1	1
United States v. Bruce Carneil Webster, A/K/A B-Lovegreen ca5 · 1999 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011U.S. v. Lackey, 334 F.3d 1224, 1226 (10th Cir. 2003) (officer’s pr e-Miranda question about the presence of guns or sharp objects on the defendant’s person was proper under the public safety exception in Quarles); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 332 (5th Cir. 1998) (asking the defendant whether he had any needles in his pockets that could injure them during their pat-down was for protection of officers and did not constitute interrogation under Miranda and Quarles).	1	1
State v. Cosbygreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 241 , 169 P.3d 1128 (2007) (discussing public safety exception and application in case law). 2011See State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 241 , 169 P.3d 1128 (2007) (discussing public safety exception and application in case law).	1	1
State v. Mattoxgreen kan · 2005 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See Mattox, 280 Kan. at 480 , 124 P.3d 6 . 2007See Mattox, 280 Kan. at 480 , 124 P.3d 6 .	1	1
State v. Ewinggreen kan · 1995 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum	1	1
State v. Drennangreen kan · 2004 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. McKessor green kan · 1990 2 sentences 2014See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 604-05 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (the independent police investigation, when combined with the defendant’s admissible statements, would have uncovered the vehicle used in the crime); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7-8 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990) (apart from the public safety exception, the gun would have been discovered approximately 2 hours later pursuant to a valid search warrant); State v. Waddell, 14 Kan. 2014See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 604-05 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (the independent police investigation, when combined with the defendant’s admissible statements, would have uncovered the vehicle used in the crime); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7-8 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990) (apart from the public safety exception, the gun would have been discovered approximately 2 hours later pursuant to a valid search warrant); State v. Waddell, 14 Kan.	4	1995–2014
New York v. Quarles green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1995The State makes a persuasive argument that a Miranda warning was not required in this case because of the public safety exception found in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 (1984), as applied by this court in the case of State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 6-7 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990). 1995The State makes a persuasive argument that a Miranda warning was not required in this case because of the public safety exception found in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 (1984), as applied by this court in the case of State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 6-7 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990).	4	1990–2011
State v. Vistuba green kan · 1992 2 sentences 2024But we have cited Cady's underlying public safety rationale as persuasive in adopting the public safety exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657 , 847 P.2d 1280 (1993). 2024But we have cited Cady's underlying public safety rationale as persuasive in adopting the public safety exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657 , 847 P.2d 1280 (1993).	2	2000–2024
Lawrence v. Texas Employment Commission green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2007For example, in State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7 , 785 P.2d 1332 , cert. denied 495 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 2184 , 109 L.Ed.2d 513 (1990), we determined that a gun seized during a valid warrantless arrest of defendant in his motel room was admissible under the public safety exception, where police officers had asked the defendant about the location of the gun before reading him the Miranda warnings. 2007For example, in State v. McKesson, 246 Kan. 1, 7 , 785 P.2d 1332 , cert, denied 495 U.S. 937 (1990), we determined that a gun seized during a valid warrantless arrest of defendant in his motel room was admissible under the public safety exception, where police officers had asked the defendant about the location of the gun before reading him the Miranda warnings.	2	2004–2007
State v. Field green kan · 1993 2 sentences 2024But we have cited Cady's underlying public safety rationale as persuasive in adopting the public safety exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657 , 847 P.2d 1280 (1993). 2024But we have cited Cady's underlying public safety rationale as persuasive in adopting the public safety exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 824 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), disapproved on other grounds in State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657 , 847 P.2d 1280 (1993).	1	2024–2024
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 2022The Court of Appeals rejected the judge's reliance on the public safety exception and instead held the officers held a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and legitimately conducted a valid investigatory detention under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. 2022The Court of Appeals rejected the judge's reliance on the public safety exception and instead held the officers held a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and legitimately conducted a valid investigatory detention under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.	1	2022–2022
State v. Clapp green kan · 2018 1 sentence 2020State v. Clapp, 308 Kan. 976 , 989, 425 P.3d 605 (2018); State v. Miller, 32 Kan.	1	2020–2020
State v. Miller neutral kanctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2020State v. Clapp, 308 Kan. 976 , 989, 425 P.3d 605 (2018); State v. Miller, 32 Kan.	1	2020–2020
State v. Waddell green kanctapp · 1989 2 sentences 2014See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 604-05 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (the independent police investigation, when combined with the defendant’s admissible statements, would have uncovered the vehicle used in the crime); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7-8 , 785 P.2d 1332 (1990) (apart from the public safety exception, the gun would have been discovered approximately 2 hours later pursuant to a valid search warrant); State v. Waddell, 14 Kan. 2014App. 2d 129, 134-35 , 784 P.2d 381 (1989) (the illegally frisked defendant would have been taken to jail and processed regardless of the search).	1	2014–2014
State v. Strozier green ohioctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2011Although agreeing the officer’s desire to avoid being stuck with needles during the pat-down was a legitimate safety concern, the court stated: “In order to invoke the public-safety exception to Miranda under diese circumstances, the officer’s question must be narrowly tailored to address only that concern.” 172 Ohio App. 3d at 791 . 2011The court suppressed physical evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s statements made while in custody and before Miranda warnings. 172 Ohio App. 3d at 791 .	1	2011–2011
State v. Bailey green kan · 1995 2 sentences 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum 2007See State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 722-724 , 101 P.3d 1218 (2004) (where officers had reasonable belief potential victim might be in danger, in need of assistance, officers justified in asking suspect about victim's whereabouts before reading suspect Miranda rights); State v. Bailey, 256 Kan. 872, 880 , 889 P.2d 738 (1995) (officer's question about whereabouts of gun occurred after high-speed chase, report defendant was suspect in shooting; question fell within "public safety" exception); see also State v. Ewing, 258 Kan. 398, 404 , 904 P.2d 962 (1995) (declining to discuss "persuasive" argum	1	2007–2007
Mayfield v. Collins neutral scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2007For example, in State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7 , 785 P.2d 1332 , cert. denied 495 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 2184 , 109 L.Ed.2d 513 (1990), we determined that a gun seized during a valid warrantless arrest of defendant in his motel room was admissible under the public safety exception, where police officers had asked the defendant about the location of the gun before reading him the Miranda warnings. 2007For example, in State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1, 7 , 785 P.2d 1332 , cert. denied 495 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 2184 , 109 L.Ed.2d 513 (1990), we determined that a gun seized during a valid warrantless arrest of defendant in his motel room was admissible under the public safety exception, where police officers had asked the defendant about the location of the gun before reading him the Miranda warnings.	1	2007–2007
Jacoby v. Arkansas Department of Education green ark · 1998 2 sentences 2000App. 437, 456 , 712 A.2d 585 (1998) (referencing Will and holding that the trial court erred when it applied the Eleventh Amendment to the case as the action was brought in state court and not federal court); and Jacoby v. Arkansas Dep’t of Education, 331 Ark. 508, 513 , 962 S.W.2d 773 (1998) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions brought in state courts as the Hilton Court “makes abundantly clear”). 2000App. 437, 456 , 712 A.2d 585 (1998) (referencing Will and holding that the trial court erred when it applied the Eleventh Amendment to the case as the action was brought in state court and not federal court); and Jacoby v. Arkansas Dep’t of Education, 331 Ark. 508, 513 , 962 S.W.2d 773 (1998) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions brought in state courts as the Hilton Court “makes abundantly clear”).	1	2000–2000
Whittington v. State Department of Public Safety red nmctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2000S. 2d 875 (1999) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity for a state when an action is brought in state court, thereby allowing the court to consider the plaintiff s FMLA claim); Ahem v. State of New York, 244 App. Div. 2d 7, 11, 676 N.Y.S. 2d 232 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions in state courts); Whittington v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 126 N.M. 21, 23 , 966 P.2d 188 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Elev 463 enth Amendment did not give the Department of Public Safety immunity from suit in state cour 2000S. 2d 875 (1999) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity for a state when an action is brought in state court, thereby allowing the court to consider the plaintiff s FMLA claim); Ahem v. State of New York, 244 App. Div. 2d 7, 11, 676 N.Y.S. 2d 232 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions in state courts); Whittington v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 126 N.M. 21, 23 , 966 P.2d 188 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Elev 463 enth Amendment did not give the Department of Public Safety immunity from suit in state cour	1	2000–2000
Bunch v. Robinson green mdctspecapp · 1998 2 sentences 2000S. 2d 875 (1999) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity for a state when an action is brought in state court, thereby allowing the court to consider the plaintiff s FMLA claim); Ahem v. State of New York, 244 App. Div. 2d 7, 11, 676 N.Y.S. 2d 232 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions in state courts); Whittington v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 126 N.M. 21, 23 , 966 P.2d 188 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Elev 463 enth Amendment did not give the Department of Public Safety immunity from suit in state cour 2000*App. 437, 456 , 712 A.2d 585 (1998) (referencing Will and holding that the trial court erred when it applied the Eleventh Amendment to the case as the action was brought in state court and not federal court); and Jacoby v. Arkansas Dep’t of Education, 331 Ark. 508, 513 , 962 S.W.2d 773 (1998) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions brought in state courts as the Hilton Court “makes abundantly clear”).	1	2000–2000
Ahern v. State green nyappdiv · 1998 1 sentence 2000S. 2d 875 (1999) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity for a state when an action is brought in state court, thereby allowing the court to consider the plaintiff s FMLA claim); Ahem v. State of New York, 244 App. Div. 2d 7, 11, 676 N.Y.S. 2d 232 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to actions in state courts); Whittington v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 126 N.M. 21, 23 , 966 P.2d 188 (1998) (quoting Hilton and holding that the Elev *463 enth Amendment did not give the Department of Public Safety immunity from suit in state cour	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-2402 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3716 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 56 (1987–2026) NY 35 (1986–2026) OH 25 (1999–2023) PA 23 (1990–2025) TX 21 (1988–2021) NJ 15 (1988–2025) KS 14 (1990–2026) CT 13 (1990–2016) MA 12 (1996–2025) AZ 12 (1989–2024) MI 12 (2001–2023) IL 9 (1988–2025) OR 8 (1985–2026) CO 8 (2007–2025) NM 8 (1990–2024) KY 7 (2008–2023) WA 7 (1985–2026) DC 7 (1995–2015) VA 7 (1993–2023) IA 7 (1994–2024) NC 6 (1989–2016) ME 6 (1993–2023) WI 6 (1979–2014) MN 6 (1992–2015) OK 4 (2006–2019) MO 4 (1988–2018) FL 4 (1997–2016) WY 3 (2004–2021) WV 3 (2018–2025) MS 2 (2011–2024) DE 2 (2020–2023) NH 2 (1994–2015) UT 2 (1997–2025) IN 2 (2002–2015) SC 2 (2016–2022) GA 2 (2024–2024) MD 2 (1999–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check