State v. McGinnis

46 Citing cases

  1. State v. Reiss

    299 Kan. 291 (Kan. 2014)   Cited 67 times
    In State v. Reiss, 299 Kan. 291, 296, 326 P.3d 367 (2014), the court set forth the following standard of review: An appellate court applies a bifurcated standard when reviewing a trial court's decision involving a motion to suppress.

    And all evidence later obtained therefore must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). The State responds that during the traffic stop, Reiss displayed unusual behavior which justified Ritter's decision to direct him back to his truck for officer safety purposes.

  2. State v. Phillips

    49 Kan. App. 2d 775 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Law enforcement interaction with a person is consensual, not a seizure, if under the totality of the circumstances the officer's conduct conveys to a reasonable person that he or she is free to refuse the officer's requests or otherwise end the encounter. State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 552, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). There are several objective factors that courts may consider to help determine whether a police-citizen encounter is voluntary or an investigatory detention, including the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical contact by the officer, use of a commanding tone of voice, activation of sirens or flashers, a command to halt or to approach, and an attempt to control the ability to flee.

  3. State v. Thomas

    291 Kan. 676 (Kan. 2011)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “a mere call for back-up does not automatically transform all citizen-law enforcement encounters into investigatory detentions”

    [Citation omitted.]"' " State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 551, 233 P.3d 246 (2010) (quoting State v. Morlock, 289 Kan. 980, 985, 218 P.3d 801 [2009]). Because the parties do not dispute the material facts, our suppression question is solely one of law.

  4. State v. Walker

    292 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2011)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that a law enforcement officer may also request identification from a stopped pedestrian

    [Citation omitted.]'"'" State v. Thomas, 291 Kan. 682, 246 P.3d 678 (2011) (citing State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 551, 233 P.3d 246 [2010]). Walker contends that the facts material to our decision are not in dispute and, therefore, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law.

  5. State v. Sutton

    No. 122 (Kan. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2021)

    Sutton maintains that, considering the totality of the circumstances after removal of the handcuffs, a reasonable person in her place would not have felt free to leave, and therefore the encounter was not voluntary. She argues the methamphetamine later obtained must be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree" because the officers had illegally seized her when they discovered the evidence. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 552-53, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). The State counters that the encounter between Sutton and the officers was voluntary after removal of the handcuffs.

  6. State v. Wagner

    358 P.3d 878 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)

    “This nonexhaustive and nonexclusive list includes: the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical contact by the officer, use of a commanding tone of voice, activation of sirens or flashers, a command to halt or to approach, and an attempt to control the ability to flee.” State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 553, 233 P.3d 246 (2010).When evaluating the presence or absence of these factors in a given case, the court has instructed that the analysis should not be rigid.

  7. State v. Moralez

    44 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    Law enforcement interaction with a citizen is consensual, not a seizure, if under the totality of the circumstances the officer's conduct conveys to a reasonable person that he or she is free to refuse the officer's requests or otherwise end the encounter. State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, Syl. ¶ 3, 223 P.3d 246 (2010). In applying the totality of the circumstances test in a Fourth Amendment context, no one factor is legally determinative, dispositive, or paramount.

  8. State v. Moralez

    297 Kan. 397 (Kan. 2013)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding other factors also may be relevant to the attenuation analysis

    We have delineated several nonexclusive factors to consider in applying this test: “the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical contact by the officer, use of a commanding tone of voice, activation of sirens or flashers, a command to halt or approach, and an attempt to control the ability to flee.” State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 553, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). “ ‘[N]o one factor is legally determinative, dispositive, or paramount.

  9. State v. Williams

    297 Kan. 370 (Kan. 2013)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under Fourth Amendment analysis that circumstance of law enforcement encounter occurring at 2:30 a.m. on a deserted sidewalk would contribute to a belief that defendant was not free to leave

    Some factors to consider in applying the totality of the circumstances test are: “the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical contact by the officer, use of a commanding tone of voice, activation of sirens or flashers, a command to halt or approach, and an attempt to control the ability to flee.” State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 553, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). This list of factors is neither exhaustive nor exclusive.

  10. State v. Bunce

    No. 119,048 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2020)

    When the State fails to meet its burden to establish the lawfulness of a challenged search or seizure, any derivative evidence obtained from the illegal search or seizure must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. See State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 551, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). "The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is 'one facet of the exclusionary rule' and 'extend[s] the scope of the exclusionary rule to bar' admission of evidence directly or indirectly obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct. State v. Deffenbaugh, 216 Kan. 593, 598, 533 P.2d 1328 (1975)."