State v. Weis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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. ““There is no statutory authority for the trial judge to dismiss the complaint against this defendant because of the illegal arrest. Illegal detention does not in itself mandate the charges being dismissed. See State v. Addington, 205 Kan. at 645 (unlawful arrest where substantial rights are prejudiced vitiates a conviction); State v. Hammond, 4 Kan. App. 2d at 645-46 (evidence seized at time of unlawful arrest is inadmissible). The usual sanction for an illegal arrest is not the dismissal of the charges against the accused, but a prohibition against the introduction into evidence of statements or admissions made by the defendant while in custody. “Though the trial judge correctly prohibited the introduction into evidence of the statements made by Weis while illegally held in custody, the judge abused his discretion by dismissing the charges against the defendant. The sanction of dismissing a criminal complaint is one that should be used ‘only under extremely compelling circumstances.’ State v. Crouch & Reeder, 230 Kan. 783, 788 , 641 P.2d 394 (1982). Under the facts, Weis’ unlawful arrest did not give her immunity from prosecution. The State may still have sufficient evidence, not tainted by the illegal arrest, to try the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) 246 Kan. at 699 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Miller

2. ““We agree with the trial court’s determination that without probable cause the officers had illegally seized Weis. But that finding alone does not prevent Weis from being prosecuted. Jurisdiction of a court to try a person accused of a crime is not divested by the fact he or she may have been unlawfully arrested. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 63 L. Ed. 2d 537 , 100 S. Ct. 1244 (1980), cited in State v. Hammond, 4 Kan. App. 2d 643, 645, 609 P.2d 1171 , rev. denied 228 Kan. 807 (1980); State v. Addington, 205 Kan. 640, 644 , 472 P.2d 225 (1970); Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P.2d 643 (1966); State v. Cook, 194 Kan. 495 , 399 P.2d 835 (1965). An unlawful arrest, without more, does not give the accused immunity from prosecution nor provide a defense to a valid conviction.” 246 Kan. at 697 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Miller

3. ““An investigatory interrogation is the questioning of an individual by law enforcement officers in a routine manner where the investigation has not reached an accusatory stage and the individual is not in legal custody or deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant manner. An individual is in police custody when significant restraints on his or her freedom of movement are imposed by some law enforcement agency.” 246 Kan. at 697 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Kan. App. 2d 797 - City of Norton v. Wonderly