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 1990–2025 1 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. Campbellgreen1 sentence2025"When an officer searches pursuant to a warrant, Leon generally requires we presume the officer acted in good-faith reliance upon the warrant." United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2025The Leon Court stated: "We . . . conclude that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 . 2020Because this weighing is fact-specific, "suppression of evidence . . . should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 . 7 In Krull, the United States Supreme Court expanded the Leon good-faith exception to include an officer's reasonable reliance on an unconstitutional statute. 480 U.S. at 349 - 50. | 10 | 1990–2025 |
Atkins v. Parker
green
2 sentences2002Ed. 2d 677 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 (1984). 1999Ed. 2d 677 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 (1984). | 2 | 1999–2002 |
Illinois v. Krull
green
2 sentences2020Because this weighing is fact-specific, "suppression of evidence . . . should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 . 7 In Krull, the United States Supreme Court expanded the Leon good-faith exception to include an officer's reasonable reliance on an unconstitutional statute. 480 U.S. at 349 - 50. 2020The United States Supreme Court held, under the circumstances of that case, excluding evidence obtained when police are enforcing a statute later found to be unconstitutional would not serve the rule's purpose because it would have no deterrent effect on law enforcement. 480 U.S. at 349 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Doile
green
1 sentence2007As Leon states: “We . . . conclude that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.’ [Citation omitted.]” 244 Kan. at 501-02 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Probst
green
2 sentences2003The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, applied by our Supreme Court in State v. Probst, *145 247 Kan. 196 , 795 P.2d 393 (1990), provides that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant should only be suppressed on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule. 2003The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, applied by our Supreme Court in State v. Probst, *145 247 Kan. 196 , 795 P.2d 393 (1990), provides that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant should only be suppressed on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.