Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Ryce

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 26, 2016No. 111,698Published

1DissentStegall, J.

What conduct is actually prohibited by K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025? If that conduct is, in all circumstances and at all times, constitutionally protected, it cannot be criminally sanctioned by the State and the statute is facially unconstitutional. But if, in some circumstances, the prohibited conduct is not constitutionally protected, then the constitutionality of the statute can only be determined on a case-by-case, as applied, basis. Because Ryce asserts a facial challenge to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025, he must demonstrate that the prohibited conduct is always constitutionally protected in…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Clark v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

17 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