State v. Anguiano
Court of Appeals of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
Greene, J.:
Salvador Anguiano appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the incriminating evidence was seized during an illegal detention. Although he ultimately consented to a search of his person, Anguiano argues that his consent was not voluntary and did not purge the taint of his illegal detention. Finally, Anguiano argues that he should have been advised of his rights under Miranda before he was interrogated. See Miranda v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, reh. denied, 385 U.S. 890 (1966). We agree with Anguiano on the issues…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Illinois v. WardlowSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. Shamel L. AlexanderSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- State v. WalkerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
- State v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2009
- Schreiner v. HodgeCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.