When a defendant challenges a search or seizure, who bears the burden of showing the search or seizure was lawful?
A. The State. State v. Damm, 246 Kan. 220, 22, 787 P.2d 1185 (1990)(citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390-91, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)). DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS* *Also known as coming attractions – meaning I’m not finished with it yet . . . Chapter 1 ARREST, SEARCH & SEIZURE 1.1 Protected Areas & Interests (a) Katz expectation of Privacy Test (b) Plain view, smell, hearing & feel (c) Residential premises (d) Open Fields (e) Business Premises (f) Vehicles (g) Personal Characteristics (h) Abandoned property/effects (i) Surveillance of Relationships/Movement 1.2 Probable Cause (a) Generally (b) Nature of Probable Cause (c) Informant Information (d) Victim/Witness Information (e) Information from/held by other officers (f) First-hand information (g) Special Problems relating to Searches 1.3 Search Warrants (a) When warrant can be utilized (b) Neutral and Detached Magistrate (c) Oath or Affirmation and Record (d) Affidavits establishing Probable Cause (e) Describing pla
