State v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Beier, J.:
This consolidated appeal follows dismissals of four criminal cases on the ground that K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3764(d), which defines unlawful removal of a theft detection device, is unconstitutionally vague.
Michael Armstrong, Winerford Hill, Sr., Clifford Griggs, and Kimona Sawyer were each charged with violating the statute. Unlawful removal of a theft detection device is a severity level 9 nonperson felony. K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3764(1).
Defendant Armstrong’s charge arose out his conduct at a Home Depot hardware store. Theft detection sensors…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Burns v. AlcalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. RupnickSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
- State v. BoyerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- Denning v. KPERSSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
- In re A.B.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2021
- State v. DavisonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.