Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Mell

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided April 18, 2008No. 98,725, 98,726Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLeben, J.

I agree with the majority that (1) Officer Rick Howard did not invade the curtilage of the Mells’ home when he walked onto the side yard; (2) the warrantless search of the Mells’ home was not justified by exigent circumstances, which requires that paragraph 5 be excised from Detective Aaron Procaccini’s probable-cause affidavit; and (3) the State has waived any claim that a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies here. But I respectfully dissent from the court’s conclusion that the affidavit provided an insufficient basis for the issuance of a search warrant for the Mells’ home.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. United States v. Barbara FamaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  4. United States v. Darryl Glenn MalinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  5. State v. RamirezSupreme Court of Kansas · 2004

12 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