State v. Gammill

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that procurement of hair sample by plucking out pubic hair follicle from beneath the skin surface is bodily intrusion, but not improper if valid search warrant exists
• holding that war-rantless plucking of 20-25 pubic hairs from suspect following arrest for sexual assault was not justified as search incident to lawful arrest where “manner of extraction was a needless indignity visited upon the defendant”
• referring to defendant as \an animal\ in closing argument \definitely improper\
• referring to defendant as \an animal\ in closing argument \definitely improper\
• knowledge of deputy sheriff imputed to the prosecution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Garcia
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1983-06-10· cited 54×
• Taylor v. State
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1992-07-10· cited 49×
• State v. Goss
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1989-07-14· cited 47×
• Sexton v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1988-04-26· cited 35×
• State v. Kilmer
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1993-12-10· cited 35×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1989-10-23· cited 34×
• State v. Antwine
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1980-02-29· cited 27×
• State v. Chappell
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1999-07-16· cited 9×
• State v. Clark
  Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1982-05-17· cited 9×
• State v. Acree
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1996-05-17· cited 7×
• State v. McConnell
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1984-09-06· cited 5×
• State v. Lussier
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-08-18· cited 3×
• United States v. Mitchell
  U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review· 1983-03-28