Schreiner v. Hodge
117034
| Kan. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Schreiner parked a Missouri-registered truck on a residential Mission, Kansas street, then went into nearby woods; neighbors called police twice about the same truck (two reports a month apart).
- Officer Chad Hodge responded to the second complaint, knew of the prior report, encountered Schreiner as he emerged from the woods, and asked if the truck was his; Schreiner was evasive and refused to answer.
- Schreiner got into the truck, officers took hold of his arms, ordered him out, detained him while they ran checks (license, VIN, warrants); Schreiner handed his license but otherwise refused to cooperate.
- Mission Sergeant Danny Smith arrived at Schreiner’s request; officers detained Schreiner about 20–25 minutes until dispatch confirmed no warrants and the truck was not stolen, then released him.
- Schreiner (pro se) sued Hodge and Smith for assault, battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment; district court granted summary judgment for officers applying discretionary-function immunity; Schreiner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the stop/detention (Fourth Amendment) | Schreiner: no reasonable suspicion; encounter was voluntary so officers lacked authority to detain or touch him | Officers: citizen complaints, prior report, evasive behavior, and location provided reasonable suspicion for a brief investigatory stop | Majority: detention was supported by reasonable suspicion given citizen reports, location, and Schreiner’s evasiveness; stop was a permissible investigatory detention |
| Battery/physical contact | Schreiner: officers’ grabbing his arms constituted battery | Officers: contact was part of lawful investigatory detention and thus privileged | Majority: no evidence of wanton conduct; contact was part of a reasonable investigatory detention and officers entitled to immunity; dissent: contact unlawful and not protected |
| False arrest / false imprisonment | Schreiner: detention without probable cause/authorization amounted to false arrest/imprisonment | Officers: detention was investigatory (Terry stop) and officers are protected by discretionary-function immunity under KTCA | Majority: officers entitled to discretionary-function immunity for investigatory detention; summary judgment for defendants affirmed; dissent: immunity doesn’t apply where evidence shows clear Fourth Amendment violation, would remand some claims |
| Applicability of discretionary-function immunity (K.S.A. 75-6104(e)) | Schreiner: immunity inapplicable because officers violated clearly established constitutional rights | Officers: stopping and investigating is a discretionary policing function; immunity applies even if discretion was abused | Majority: immunity protects officers’ investigatory detention decisions even if ultimately incorrect; immunity applied. Dissent: immunity doesn’t shield plainly unlawful constitutional violations; would reverse on some claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes that police may briefly detain for investigation on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 (1982) (police decisions in the field are discretionary and often protected from tort liability)
- Mendoza v. Reno County, 235 Kan. 692 (1984) (discretionary-function immunity applied where officers had probable cause for arrest)
- State v. Reason, 263 Kan. 405 (1997) (investigatory detention justified where refusal to provide identification/registration supported further inquiry)
- Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73 (2010) (KTCA discretionary-function immunity principles; wanton conduct not protected)
- Thomas v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 293 Kan. 208 (2011) (discretionary acts analysis and reliance on officer training/experience for reasonable-suspicion judgments)