19 Kan. App. 2d 786 - State v. Vandiver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Applying the aforementioned rationale to this case, we could find no evidence showing Wilson believed defendant and the four other individuals, excluding the one individual he arrested immediately upon entering the living room, were anything more than social guests of Moneymaker. Nor was any other evidence presented to link defendant to the odor of burnt marijuana or to the marijuana on the living room floor. Moreover, the State failed to introduce any evidence that the living room was used exclusively for the purchase or sale of marijuana. Aside from defendant’s presence in the house, Wilson had no reason to believe defendant had any drugs in his possession. Probable cause requires more than mere "[bjald conclusions, mere affirmations of belief, or suspicions.” State v. Morgan, 222 Kan. 149, 151 , 563 P.2d 1056 (1977). Therefore, we conclude that the evidence does not support a finding of probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 884 F. Supp. 2d 923 - Odom v. Kaizer

2. ““In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain and search any person in the place at the time: (a) To protect himself from attack, or (b) To prevent the disposal or concealment of any tilings particularly described in the warrant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vandiver