Callander v. Starkman Drug, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Court of Appeals erroneously applied de novo review for motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment when district court had not made factual findings
• finding once law enforcement lawfully enters a constitutionally protected area, \officers may seize any evidence of a crime in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities\
• The search and seizure provisions of the Kansas and United States Constitutions are similar and provide the same rights and protections.
• The search and seizure provisions of the Kansas and United States Constitutions are similar and provide the same rights and protections.
• \[T]he panel should have remanded if it believed the district court made inadequate factual findings that would have prevented appellate review.\
• \[A] warrantless entry into a private dwelling by law enforcement officers is considered unreasonable and invalid unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).