2 Kan. App. 2d 38 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Among the well-established legitimate reasons’ for a police officer to be present on privately occupied premises is in response to an emergency. See Vale v. Lou isiana, 399 U.S. 30, 35 , 26 L. Ed. 2d 409 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 [1970]; Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205 (D.C. Cir. 1963); State v. Boyle, 207 Kan. 833 , 486 P.2d 849 [1971], In Wayne , the ‘emergency doctrine’ was well described by then Circuit Judge Warren Burger: ‘ . . . [A] warrant is not required to bréale down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency . . . .’ ( 318 F.2d at 212 .) “In Boyle , the Kansas Supreme Court stated: “Where “exigent circumstances” . . . exist the business of policemen is to act, not to speculate or meditate on whether the report is correct. People could well die in emergencies if police tried to act with the calm deliberation associated with judicial process . . . .’ ( 207 Kan. at 839 .) “Unlike Schur in which contraband was viewed prior to a valid entry, the facts in the case at bar fit squarely within the concerns of the emergency doctrine. The officers responded to a fire call. Upon arrival at the scene, they forcibly entered the apartment in order to save property and possibly to save lives. The initial intrusion was lawful.” 2 Kan. App. 2d”

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

2. ““Among the well-established ‘legitimate reasons’ for a police officer to be present on privately occupied premises is in response to an emergency. See Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 35 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 ; Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205 (D.C. Cir. 1963); State v. Boyle, 207 Kan. 833 , 486 P.2d 849 . In Wayne , the ‘emergency doctrine’ was well described by then Circuit Judge Warren Burger: “ ‘. . . [A] warrant is not required to break down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency . . . .’ ( 318 F.2d at 212 .)” 2 Kan. App. 2d at 41 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 405 - State v. Jones

3. ““[TJhat for the plain view exception to apply, it must be shown (1) that the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) that the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) that the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Kan. App. 2d 619 - State v. Goodman