State v. Ruden

27 Citing cases

  1. State v. Roberts

    293 Kan. 29 (Kan. 2011)   Cited 17 times

    Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. at 569, 97 S.Ct. 1349; see Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975) (“[J]eopardy does not attach until a defendant is ‘put to trial before the trier of the facts.’ ”); State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 99, 774 P.2d 972 (1989) (“In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled and sworn”; “[i]n a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn.”). Consequently, if the order is entered after the close of one party's evidence, jeopardy would have attached.

  2. State v. Kriegh

    23 Kan. App. 2d 935 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that minority status alone does not prevent one from giving consent; a court must look at the surrounding circumstances to see if the minor had authority to consent, if the consent was given knowingly and voluntarily, and if the scope of the consent requested and given was proper

    The appellate court cannot decide a question of fact that is based upon conflicting testimony which requires an assessment of the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses." State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 106, 774 P.2d 972 (1989).        The State argues that the record "clearly shows" that the district court believed that an officer may not rely on a juvenile's consent to gain entry into a residence.

  3. Milner v. Duncklee

    460 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Conn. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a state court "capias" authorizing a home arrest for failure to appear in court was not equivalent to a Fourth Amendment warrant "because a capias can issue without a probable cause determination"

    Id. at 748-52. See also State v. Ruden, 774 P.2d 972, 977-78 (Kan. 1989) (holding that a bench warrant issued in a "limited action" civil case based on an individual's failure to appear did not constitute a valid arrest warrant sufficient to authorize a home arrest). In addition, the Court suggested, though declined to decide, that for non-felony offenses, even exigent circumstances would not permit a justifiable exception to the warrant requirement for home arrests.

  4. U.S. v. Meindl

    83 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Kan. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    Rejecting argument that plain view/smell exception was inapplicable because the dog sniff occurred in a home rather than a public place

    The government does not address the precedential value of this Kansas law in deciding this Fourth Amendment issue. In State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 774 P.2d 972 (1989), cited but not discussed in the government's brief, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibited officers' nonconsensual entry into a private dwelling in — execution of a bench warrant issued in a limited civil action. The court keyed on the fact that the Kansas statute authorized a bench warrant to issue without requiring a probable cause finding that a crime was committed.

  5. State v. Thomas

    280 Kan. 526 (Kan. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Thomas, 280 Kan. 526, 531, 124 P.3d 48 (2005), the Kansas Supreme Court interpreted Payton as requiring probable cause to believe the subject of the arrest warrant resided in the home and was present in the home.

    Further, as to Prouse, there was a warrant for his arrest on a crime for which he had been convicted. To support his probable cause argument, Thomas cites State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 774 P.2d 972 (1989), where the State appealed the district court's decision to grant the defendant's motion to suppress. Two bench warrants were issued for Robert Ruden's failure to appear in limited actions civil cases.

  6. State v. Holmes

    278 Kan. 603 (Kan. 2004)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that where appellant cites no authority to support a position on appeal and only makes conclusory legal allegations, the issue has not been adequately briefed and is deemed abandoned

    223 Kan. at 143.'" State v. Rexroat, 266 Kan. 50, 55, 966 P.2d 666 (1998) (quoting State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 105, 774 P.2d 972 [1989]). "In determining whether consent was voluntary, the trial court should consider whether the individual was threatened or coerced, and whether he was informed of his rights.

  7. State v. Daino

    458 P.3d 252 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's consent to search was valid. State v. Ruden , 245 Kan. 95, Syl. ¶ 6, 774 P.2d 972 (1989). To establish valid consent, the State must prove: (1) clear and positive testimony that consent was unequivocal, specific, and freely and intelligently given; and (2) the absence of duress or coercion, express or implied.

  8. City of Wichita v. Bannon

    42 Kan. App. 2d 196 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    " Beerbower, 262 Kan. at 253, 936 P.2d 248.          In support of his claim that we should treat the district court's ruling as a judgment of acquittal, thereby barring the City's appeal, Bannon relies upon a statement in State v. Anderson, 40 Kan.App.2d 69, 72, 188 P.3d 38 (2008), rev. denied 287 Kan. ---- (2009), to the effect that while an acquittal generally follows the close of evidence, our Supreme Court in State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 98, 774 P.2d 972 (1989), recognized that an acquittal may be granted before the close of the State's case, such as when a fatal flaw is revealed in the State's opening statement.           In Ruden, the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal after suppressing the State's evidence, and the State appealed.

  9. Nugyen v. Esplund

    34 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times
    In Esplund, the panel found the language in the statute providing for the issuance of a bench warrant did not require an affidavit or other verification as the local court rule required; therefore, the statute controls.

    We would, however, add the following dicta. As we read State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 774 P.2d 972 (1989), a probable cause finding is necessary if a warrant is to be used to enter a person's house. But the Ruden court acknowledged that a bench warrant issued in a civil case, as here, does not require a finding of probable cause.

  10. State v. Kermoade

    33 Kan. App. 2d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    In Kermoade, the court first determined that a seizure had in fact occurred because a reasonable person in the defendants' situation would not have felt free to disregard the officers' demands.

    The defendants principally argue for several reasons that the trial court was correct and should be affirmed. The defendants point to and heavily rely on the standard of review restated in State v. Rexroat, 266 Kan. 50, 54-55, 966 P.2d 666 (1998), and arising from Justice Allegrucci's summary in State v. Ruden, 245 Kan. 95, 105, 774 P.2d 972 (1989): "`An individual may waive the requirement of a search warrant or consent to a search without a warrant, but the State has the burden to show such consent or waiver is voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given.