Spiehs v. Smith
U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · D. Kan. · Kansas bar guidance
Conduct
Plaintiff's brief opposing dismissal quoted three cases for language the court confirmed does not appear in them.
Consequence
Here the court declined a show-cause order but strongly warned counsel that further incorrect quotations could bring Rule 11 and Standing Order 26-01 sanctions.
Lesson
In this case the court ran the quotes through Westlaw itself and said it strongly suspected AI when no exact match came back.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Spiehs v. Smith, No. 25-4067-JWB, Memorandum and Order (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2026) (Broomes, C.J.), ECF No. 47
- Decided
- April 29, 2026
Summary
Justin Spiehs, who describes himself as a citizen journalist, sued the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Administration, and six Highway Patrol officers over his removal from permitted events at the Kansas State Capitol in 2025, including a June 14, 2025 arrest for criminal trespass during which he alleges he was forced to the ground, struck, and handcuffed too tightly. Opposing a motion to dismiss the excessive-force claim, Plaintiff argued that the defendants' authorities involved lawful arrests and that, because no lawful arrest occurred here, no level of force was appropriate. The defendants pointed out that three cases Plaintiff cited and quoted for that proposition were "defective as the quotes used in Plaintiff's brief are not present in the cited cases." Chief Judge John W. Broomes wrote that "[t]he court has confirmed this contention" and that it "strongly suspects this is a product of the use of artificial intelligence, given that a Westlaw search for these precise quotes turned up no exact results." The order does not name the three cases or Plaintiff's counsel.
- AI tool:
- Suspected, not found: the court "strongly suspects this is a product of the use of artificial intelligence" because a Westlaw search for the quotes returned no exact results; no tool identified
What did the court warn about?
In footnote 5 of the memorandum and order, the court declined to enter a show-cause order "at this time" but stated that "Plaintiff's counsel is strongly warned that the any further incorrect quotations could result in sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and D. Kan. Standing Order No. 26-01." No sanction was imposed. On the merits, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Darren Canty and granted in part and denied in part the other defendants' motions. The excessive-force claim against Defendants Byttner and Manker, based on their alleged striking of Plaintiff during the arrest, may proceed; the handcuffing-based excessive-force theory failed. A narrow part of Count III, a First Amendment challenge to K.A.R. 1-49-10 as administered by Defendant Adam Proffitt in his official capacity, also remains; defendants Smith, Walker, Chavez, Scheibe, and Canty were dismissed in their entirety. The court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and denied his motion to amend the complaint.
Why does Spiehs v. Smith matter for law firms using AI?
The citation issue in Spiehs sits in one footnote of a long qualified-immunity and First Amendment ruling. The defendants’ reply flagged that three cases Plaintiff cited on excessive force did not contain the quotations attributed to them. Chief Judge Broomes did not take that on faith: the court “confirmed this contention,” and noted that a Westlaw search for the precise quotes “turned up no exact results,” which led it to “strongly suspect[]” artificial intelligence. The court did not find that AI was used, and the order does not say how the brief was prepared.
The court chose a warning over a show-cause order. It declined to enter a show-cause order “at this time” and warned counsel that further incorrect quotations could lead to sanctions under Rule 11 and the District of Kansas’s Standing Order No. 26-01. The warning is directed to Plaintiff’s counsel rather than to Plaintiff personally.
The argument the quotations supported did not succeed. The court had already concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and in a separate footnote it observed that, based on a case the defendants cited, “it seems Plaintiff’s recitation of the law is untrue,” because the absence of probable cause at the time of arrest “does not automatically make out a claim for excessive force.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court addressed the defective quotations even though the argument they supported failed on other grounds.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify that each quotation appears verbatim in the cited opinion. Here the court confirmed the opposing party's point that the quoted language was not in the three cited cases.
- Review the District of Kansas AI standing order before filing there. The court named D. Kan. Standing Order No. 26-01, alongside Rule 11, as a basis for sanctions if incorrect quotations recur.
- Consider that a court may test quotations with its own research tools. The court based its suspicion of AI use on a Westlaw search that returned no exact results for the quotes.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is the court's suspicion, not a finding: the order says the court 'strongly suspects' AI use based on a Westlaw search for the quotes. No party or counsel acknowledged AI use in the order.
- The order does not name the three cases whose quotations were missing or the attorney who filed Plaintiff's brief (Doc. 27); neither was researched.