Hartman v. Kendall

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that evidence seized in a search “in violation of the Fourth Amendment . . . and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights” was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine
• reviewing whether the State proved “by a preponderance of the evidence that the consent was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given” under a substantial evidence standard
• applying inevitable discovery when information known to officers would have furnished probable cause for warrant
• applying inevitable discovery when information known to officers would have furnished probable cause for warrant
• consent coerced because of repeated requests to search; negative implication from officer's promise not to take defendant to jail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).