State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Johnson

226 P. 251, 116 Kan. 179, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 10, 1924

DocketNo. 25,455

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 P. 251 (State v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Johnson, 226 P. 251, 116 Kan. 179, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 41 (kan 1924).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendant was' convicted of transporting liquor into the state and of having liquor in his possession, and appeals.

The defendant’s right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure was flagrantly violated, and intoxicating liquor found in his traveling bag soon after he alighted from a train on completion of an interstate journey, was introduced in evidence against him. The [180]*180details of the occurrence and the measures taken by defendant to protect himself, from the time he was approached by the officer at the railroad station, until his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, need not be recited. The case was advanced for consideration with the case of The State v. Johnson, ante, p. 58, and the decision in that case controls decision of this one.

Some assignments Of error not involving the constitutional question have been considered, and are without substantial merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendant was' convicted of transporting liquor into the state and of having liquor in his possession, and appeals.

The defendant’s right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure was flagrantly violated, and intoxicating liquor found in his traveling bag soon after he alighted from a train on completion of an interstate journey, was introduced in evidence against him. The [180]*180details of the occurrence and the measures taken by defendant to protect himself, from the time he was approached by the officer at the railroad station, until his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, need not be recited. The case was advanced for consideration with the case of The State v. Johnson, ante, p. 58, and the decision in that case controls decision of this one.

Some assignments Of error not involving the constitutional question have been considered, and are without substantial merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 P. 251, 116 Kan. 179, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-kan-1924.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack