35 Kan. App. 2d 202 - State v. Hamic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through tire Fourteenth Amendment, and § 15 of tire Kansas Constitution Bill of Bights prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.’ Ramirez, 278 Kan. at 404. The stopping of a moving vehicle by law enforcement is always considered a seizure. City of Norton v. Stewart, 31 Kan. App. 2d 645, 647 , 70 P.3d 707 (2003). “However, our courts consider a moving vehicle seizure to be an investigatory detention, as originally defined by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Kansas has codified the parameters of a permissible Terry stop in K.S.A. 22-2402(1), which provides: “Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand . . . the name [and] address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.’ “To lawfully stop a moving vehicle under Terry and K.S.A. 22-2402(1), a law enforcement officer must ‘ “have a reasonable and articulable suspicion, based on fact, that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”’ State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 734 , 952 P.2d 1276 (1998) (quoting State v. Epperson, 237 Kan. 707, 712 , 703 P.2d 761 [1985]). ‘Something more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch must be articulated. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 104 L. Ed. ”

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