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.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2022 2 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. Rosegreen2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide | 2 | 2 |
Brewer v. Zieglergreen2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide | 2 | 2 |
Emerson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide | 2 | 2 |
Ballard v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular BAC); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, 134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ct. App. 2006) (same); People v. *824 Rose, 268 Ill. 2009See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular blood-alcohol concentration [BAC] level); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, n134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ariz. App. 2006) (same); People v. Rose, 268 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Schmidt v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2009App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); Wilson v. State, 124 Md. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Coongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular BAC); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, 134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ct. App. 2006) (same); People v. *824 Rose, 268 Ill. 2009See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular blood-alcohol concentration [BAC] level); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, n134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ariz. App. 2006) (same); People v. Rose, 268 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
City of Wichita v. Molitorgreen2 sentences2022ANALYSIS THE INCLUSION OF THE HGN TEST RESULTS IN THE PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RENDER THE WARRANT TO DRAW FULLMER'S BLOOD INVALID On appeal, Fullmer revives his argument that the warrant authorizing his blood draw was invalid because it rested in part on his failed HGN test—the results of which are unreliable under City of Wichita v. Molitor, 301 Kan. 251, 264 , 341 P.3d 1275 (2015). 2022ANALYSIS THE INCLUSION OF THE HGN TEST RESULTS IN THE PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RENDER THE WARRANT TO DRAW FULLMER'S BLOOD INVALID On appeal, Fullmer revives his argument that the warrant authorizing his blood draw was invalid because it rested in part on his failed HGN test—the results of which are unreliable under City of Wichita v. Molitor, 301 Kan. 251, 264 , 341 P.3d 1275 (2015). | 1 | 5 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2015He claims that the test for reliability set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 2015He claims that the test for reliability set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nagelgreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson | 1 | 2 |
Law v. Law Co. Building Associatesgreen2 sentences2015See Black’s Law Dictionary 549 (10th ed. 2014) (judicial dictum is opinion “that is not essential to the decision”); see also Law v. Law Company Building Assocs., 295 Kan. 551, 564 , 289 P.3d 1066 (2012) (“ ‘Nobody is bound by dictum . . . .’ ”). 2015See Black’s Law Dictionary 549 (10th ed. 2014) (judicial dictum is opinion “that is not essential to the decision”); see also Law v. Law Company Building Assocs., 295 Kan. 551, 564 , 289 P.3d 1066 (2012) (“ ‘Nobody is bound by dictum . . . .’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pollmangreen2 sentences2012See State v. Tollman, 286 Kan. 881 , Syl. ¶ 7, 190 P.3d 234 (2008) (failure to follow officer’s directions, smell of alcohol, and admission of drinking provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify officer’s request for PBT). 2012See State v. Tollman, 286 Kan. 881 , Syl. ¶ 7, 190 P.3d 234 (2008) (failure to follow officer’s directions, smell of alcohol, and admission of drinking provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify officer’s request for PBT). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. City of Dothan, ALgreen1 sentence2012See Strickland v. City of Dothan, AL, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1275 , 1288 n.29 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap | 1 | 1 |
| Plouff v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Murphygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Armstronggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Angle v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McNaughtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bressongreen | 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. Witte
green
2 sentences2015The opinion noted that NHTSA claimed that “the HGN test is an accurate and effective field sobriety test to determine whether a drivers alcohol concentration is above .10.” 251 Kan. at 315 . 2015The opinion noted that NHTSA claimed that “the HGN test is an accurate and effective field sobriety test to determine whether a drivers alcohol concentration is above .10.” 251 Kan. at 315 . | 5 | 2006–2015 |
State v. Chastain
green
2 sentences2010Six years later, in Chastain, 265 Kan. 16 , this court was asked to reexamine Witte in light of subsequent decisions in four states that allowed the use of the HGN test. 2010Six years later, in Chastain, 265 Kan. 16 , this court was asked to reexamine Witte in light of subsequent decisions in four states that allowed the use of the HGN test. | 2 | 2010–2015 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Campoy
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular BAC); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, 134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ct. App. 2006) (same); People v. *824 Rose, 268 Ill. 2010See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular BAC); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, 134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ct. App. 2006) (same); People v. *824 Rose, 268 Ill. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Dahood
green
2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson | 2 | 2009–2010 |
People v. Rose
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular BAC); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, 134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ct. App. 2006) (same); People v. *824 Rose, 268 Ill. 2009See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a particular blood-alcohol concentration [BAC] level); State v. Campoy, 214 Ariz. 132, n134-35 , 149 P.3d 756 (Ariz. App. 2006) (same); People v. Rose, 268 Ill. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that 2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 2 | 1992–2010 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that 2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 2 | 1992–2010 |
Mount v. El Dorado County Superior Court
green
2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Baue
green
2 sentences2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences2022For its part, the State directs our attention to State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 128 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). 2022For its part, the State directs our attention to State v. Henry, 263 Kan. 118, 128 , 947 P.2d 1020 (1997). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2022The State argues the Molitor rule does not apply to search warrant applications. 3 In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. 2022The State argues the Molitor rule does not apply to search warrant applications. 3 In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sloop v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2020As in other totality of the circumstances tests, there is no rigid application of factors and courts should not merely count the facts or factors that support one side of the determination or the other.' [Citations omitted.]" 296 Kan. at 20 . 6 We begin by asking whether the district court's decision to suppress the HGN test result and the request for a PBT were supported by our Supreme Court's decision in Molitor. 2020As in other totality of the circumstances tests, there is no rigid application of factors and courts should not merely count the facts or factors that support one side of the determination or the other.' [Citations omitted.]" 296 Kan. at 20 . 6 We begin by asking whether the district court's decision to suppress the HGN test result and the request for a PBT were supported by our Supreme Court's decision in Molitor. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
City of Wichita v. Molitor
green
2 sentences2015The panel found that while there was still considerable debate throughout other jurisdictions as to whether HGN test results could be admissible at trial, it was unable to find any authority from other jurisdictions holding that HGN test results could not be considered for the purposes of determining probable cause in a DUI case. 46 Kan. 2015The panel concluded that because reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause, “HGN test results may, under appropriate circumstances, be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to request a PBT.” 46 Kan. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. McClanahan
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208, 211 , 510 P.2d 153 (1973) (competency of evidence is question of law). 2015Cf. State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208, 211 , 510 P.2d 153 (1973) (competency of evidence is question of law). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Shadden
green
1 sentence2012In support of this finding, the Kansas Supreme Court cited several cases from other jurisdictions — including Alaska, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas — in which it was held that HGN test results are admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but inadmissible to establish a specific BAC. 290 Kan. at 823-24 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| City of New York v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. DiNonno green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Hawkins v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Carson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Meador green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Hill green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Dakuras green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Sides green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Garrett green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Jebelian neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Commonwealth v. Miller green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Kelly green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Maze green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Smith v. Deppish green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Malone v. City of Silverhill green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.