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.
7 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2018See State v. Stevenson , 299 Kan. 53 , 58, 321 P.3d 754 (2014) (stating that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment is a subclass of the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception under which, "[i]f a vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for police to search the vehicle"). 2018See State v. Stevenson , 299 Kan. 53 , 58, 321 P.3d 754 (2014) (stating that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment is a subclass of the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception under which, "[i]f a vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for police to search the vehicle"). | 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. Sanchez-Loredo
green
2 sentences2021As a result, "[i]f a vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for police to search the vehicle." 294 Kan. 50 , Syl. ¶ 4. 2021This is because "[u]nder the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, which is a subclass of the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception, the mobility of the vehicle provides the exigent circumstances without the necessity of proving anything more." 294 Kan. 50 , Syl. ¶ 4. | 4 | 2013–2021 |
State v. Parker
green
1 sentence2020The automobile exception provides that a warrant is not required to search a vehicle as long as 'probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime' and the vehicle is 'readily mobile.' The probable cause analysis reviews the totality of the circumstances to determine the probability that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence. [Citations omitted.]" Doelz, 309 Kan. at 143 . "[I]f the material facts are undisputed, as they are in [this] appeal, the suppression issue simply presents a question of law subject to de novo review. [Citation omitted.]" Parker | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Doelz
green
1 sentence2020The automobile exception provides that a warrant is not required to search a vehicle as long as 'probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime' and the vehicle is 'readily mobile.' The probable cause analysis reviews the totality of the circumstances to determine the probability that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence. [Citations omitted.]" Doelz, 309 Kan. at 143 . "[I]f the material facts are undisputed, as they are in [this] appeal, the suppression issue simply presents a question of law subject to de novo review. [Citation omitted.]" Parker | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2018Torres also addresses the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the officer lawfully conducted the search and seizure under the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception as applied in Gant -that is, where law enforcement officers "search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest." Gant , 556 U.S. at 343 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 . 2018Torres also addresses the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the officer lawfully conducted the search and seizure under the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception as applied in Gant -that is, where law enforcement officers "search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest." Gant , 556 U.S. at 343 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Conn
green
2 sentences2012Ed. 2d 406 (1985); State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 395 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004). 2012Ed. 2d 406 (1985); State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 395 , 99 P.3d 1108 (2004). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
California v. Carney
green
2 sentences2012Frequently, the State meets the exigency requirement by relying on a subclass of the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception referred to as the “automobile exception.” See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390 , 105 S. Ct. 2066 , 85 L. 2012Frequently, the State meets the exigency requirement by relying on a subclass of the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception referred to as the “automobile exception.” See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390 , 105 S. Ct. 2066 , 85 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |