custody inquiry in Kansas

2020The custody test is general, and the state court's application of our law fits within the matrix of our prior decisions." 541 U.S. at 665 .

2008In Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004), the Supreme Court held that a suspect's prior experience with law enforcement is not a relevant factor in the custody inquiry.

2025While we agreed the report would otherwise be hearsay under the circumstances, we found it was admissible because it met the requirements for admissibility under K.S.A. 60-1615—that is, the report was made available to the opposing party before the hearing. 13 Kan.

2022App. 2d at 761 . 7 McIntosh interpreted the custody requirement to mean that an arrestee must remain in the custody of the arresting officer or another law enforcement officer, or the arrestee may be momentarily out of the arresting officer's physical presence under circumstances that will not compromise the integrity of the test results. 291 Kan. 41 , Syl. ¶ 4.

2022App. 2d at 761 . 7 McIntosh interpreted the custody requirement to mean that an arrestee must remain in the custody of the arresting officer or another law enforcement officer, or the arrestee may be momentarily out of the arresting officer's physical presence under circumstances that will not compromise the integrity of the test results. 291 Kan. 41 , Syl. ¶ 4.

2022The Eberle panel held the custody requirement encompasses more than alcohol consumption and once a person leaves custody they no longer have the right to rescind refusal. 33 Kan.

2014Regarding the second factor of ill will, a prosecutor’s ill will is often “ ‘reflected through deliberate and repeated misconduct.’ [Citations omitted.]” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 430 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011).

2014Regarding the second factor of ill will, a prosecutor’s ill will is often “ ‘reflected through deliberate and repeated misconduct.’ [Citations omitted.]” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 430 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011).

2008Ed. 2d 317 , 104 S. Ct. 3138 [1984]; Stansbury); State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 597-603 , 802 P.2d 558 (1990) (discussing the development of the objective standard and holding that the fact a suspect is the focus of the investigation is relevant under the objective standard only if the suspect was aware he or she was the focus and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that because of this he or she was in custody); State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 752 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (existence of an out-of-state felony warrant that required the defendant be detained, which was kno

2008Ed. 2d 317 , 104 S. Ct. 3138 [1984]; Stansbury); State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 597-603 , 802 P.2d 558 (1990) (discussing the development of the objective standard and holding that the fact a suspect is the focus of the investigation is relevant under the objective standard only if the suspect was aware he or she was the focus and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that because of this he or she was in custody); State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 752 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (existence of an out-of-state felony warrant that required the defendant be detained, which was kno

2008Ed. 2d 317 , 104 S. Ct. 3138 [1984]; Stansbury); State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 597-603 , 802 P.2d 558 (1990) (discussing the development of the objective standard and holding that the fact a suspect is the focus of the investigation is relevant under the objective standard only if the suspect was aware he or she was the focus and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that because of this he or she was in custody); State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 752 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (existence of an out-of-state felony warrant that required the defendant be detained, which was kno

2008Ed. 2d 317 , 104 S. Ct. 3138 [1984]; Stansbury); State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 597-603 , 802 P.2d 558 (1990) (discussing the development of the objective standard and holding that the fact a suspect is the focus of the investigation is relevant under the objective standard only if the suspect was aware he or she was the focus and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that because of this he or she was in custody); State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 752 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (existence of an out-of-state felony warrant that required the defendant be detained, which was kno

2008Ed. 2d 317 , 104 S. Ct. 3138 [1984]; Stansbury); State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 597-603 , 802 P.2d 558 (1990) (discussing the development of the objective standard and holding that the fact a suspect is the focus of the investigation is relevant under the objective standard only if the suspect was aware he or she was the focus and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that because of this he or she was in custody); State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 752 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (existence of an out-of-state felony warrant that required the defendant be detained, which was kno

2008As we noted in Jones , custody "`depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.'" Jones, 283 Kan. at 193 , 151 P.3d 22 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 [1994]).

2008As we noted in Jones , custody "`depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.'" Jones, 283 Kan. at 193 , 151 P.3d 22 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 [1994]).

2008The panel nevertheless held that the father had "parental rights to the custody of his child and ... that those rights must be given preference and will prevail over those of the adoptive parents due to the parental preference rule." 2 Kan.App.2d at 95 , 575 P.2d 894 .

2008The panel nevertheless held that the father had "parental rights to the custody of his child and ... that those rights must be given preference and will prevail over those of the adoptive parents due to the parental preference rule." 2 Kan.App.2d at 95 , 575 P.2d 894 .

2008A police officer's comment about the need for a lawyer was at issue in State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003).

2008A police officer's comment about the need for a lawyer was at issue in State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003).

2008As we noted in Jones , custody "`depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.'" Jones, 283 Kan. at 193 , 151 P.3d 22 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 [1994]).

2008As we noted in Jones , custody "`depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.'" Jones, 283 Kan. at 193 , 151 P.3d 22 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 [1994]).