State v. Pettay

23 Citing cases

  1. State v. Julian

    333 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    In Julian, the lower courts had relied on Gant to uphold a warrantless search incident to arrest for evidence of the crime of arrest.

    The State bears the burden to demonstrate a warrantless search was lawful. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. ––––, 326 P.3d 1039, 1043 (2014). Searches Incident to Arrest: 1969 to Present

  2. City of Kingman v. Ary

    475 P.3d 1240 (Kan. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    Discussing stare decisis principles

    291 Kan. at 507-08, 242 P.3d 1186 (Johnson J., dissenting). Then, in State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), this court declined to extend Daniel because the search in Pettay exceeded the scope authorized by the statute. A concurring opinion in Pettay reiterated the objection to the Daniel court's expansion of the good-faith exception and disagreed with the concept that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct.

  3. State v. Heim

    475 P.3d 1248 (Kan. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining the doctrine of stare decisis

    291 Kan. at 507-08, 242 P.3d 1186 (Johnson J., dissenting). Then, in State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), this court declined to extend Daniel because the search in Pettay exceeded the scope authorized by the statute. A concurring opinion in Pettay reiterated the objection to the Daniel court's expansion of the good-faith exception and disagreed with the concept that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct.

  4. State v. Schmidt

    385 P.3d 936 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying exception, also noting that State may raise good-faith exception for the first time on appeal.

    291 Kan. at 500, 242 P.3d 1186. Finally, Schmidt points to State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014), as an example of a case where the Kansas Supreme Court declined to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in order to uphold a vehicle search incident to the defendant's arrest pursuant to K.S.A. 22–2501, after the statute was subsequently held to be unconstitutional. But Pettay is distinguishable because the law enforcement officer in that case searched the vehicle after the driver had been handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car.

  5. State v. Kraemer

    52 Kan. App. 2d 686 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Generally, when police officers obtain evidence in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence may not be used at trial—this is known as the exclusionary rule. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 768–69, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). The exclusionary rule was designed by the courts to deter police from violating a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.

  6. In re J.O.

    422 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2018)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Consistent with that conclusion, the district court implemented its own warning by advising it would remind testifying PVPD officers of their privilege against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this court has observed, suppression of evidence "is a deterrent measure," not a personal right. State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 769, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). "Therefore, its application is ‘ "restricted to those situations in which its remedial purpose is effectively advanced.

  7. State v. James

    301 Kan. 898 (Kan. 2015)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reversibility for erroneous admission of evidence from defendant's cell phone in violation of the Fourth Amendment turned on the harmless-error test applicable to constitutional errors, not the more lenient test for non-constitutional errors

    Since Anderson was decided, this court has repeatedly ruled that K.S.A. 22–2501 governs searches incident to arrest and sets forth the “permissible circumstances, purposes, and scope” of such searches. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, Syl. ¶ 4, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) ; State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, Syl. ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 323 (2013) ; State v. Dennis, 297 Kan. 229, Syl. ¶ 5, 300 P.3d 81 (2013) ; State v. Conn, 278 Kan. 387, 391, 99 P.3d 1108 (2004). While correct, this recitation of the interplay between K.S.A. 22–2501 and the Fourth Amendment is incomplete.

  8. State v. Overman

    301 Kan. 704 (Kan. 2015)   Cited 80 times
    Holding district court's decision will be upheld if it is correct for any reason

    The district court's factual findings on a motion to suppress are reviewed for substantial competent evidence, but the legal conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are reviewed de novo. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 768, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (citing State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 495, 242 P.3d 1186 [2010], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2114, 179 L.Ed.2d 908 [2011] ). Analysis

  9. State v. Perkins

    449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Krull

    But I question the notion that the only purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. It also functions to preserve the integrity of the judicial system; to prevent the government from profiting from the fruits of lawless behavior, whether intentional or inadvertent; and to preserve the rights of citizens guaranteed by our founding fathers in the Bill of Rights. Cf. State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 772-73, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (discussing other purposes served by the exclusionary rule). In Webb , Justice Johnson quoted Thomas Jefferson, to-wit: " ‘[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.’

  10. State v. Hubbard

    430 P.3d 956 (Kan. 2018)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the totality of the circumstances surrounding a police officer's detection of the smell of raw marijuana emanating from a residence can supply probable cause to believe the residence contains contraband or evidence of a crime

    This exclusionary rule "safeguards Fourth Amendment rights by preventing the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings against victims of illegal searches." State v. Pettay , 299 Kan. 763, 768, 326 P.3d 1039 (2014). For the exclusionary rule to apply, there first must be a constitutional violation.