Legal Opinion

State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 12, 2003No. 88,692, 88,835, 89,595, 88,899PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  5. Burns v. AlcalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. RupnickSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
  2. State v. BoyerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  3. Denning v. KPERSSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
  4. In re A.B.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2021
  5. State v. DavisonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API