504 P.3d 410
Kan.2022Background
- On June 5, 2014, Mark Schreiner parked legally on a Mission, Kansas, street and walked into a nearby wooded area; a citizen reported the vehicle as "suspicious."
- Officer Chad Hodge responded, ran the vehicle information, later encountered Schreiner returning to the truck, and asked whether the truck belonged to him; Schreiner initially refused to answer and asked if he was free to leave.
- Hodge told Schreiner he was free to leave, but then physically restrained him (grabbed his arm), would not return his license, and told him he was not free to go while the investigation continued; Sergeant Danny Smith later arrived and additional officers prevented Schreiner from leaving.
- Schreiner alleges assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and unlawful seizure; he sued Hodge and Smith under state tort theories (pro se).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and that defendants were immune under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA) discretionary-function exception; a Court of Appeals majority affirmed.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed: it held the officers lacked reasonable suspicion (so no common-law privilege), but nevertheless held the officers are immune under K.S.A. 75-6104(e) because the reasonable-suspicion determination is a discretionary, policy-implicating function; summary judgment for defendants was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Schreiner (Fourth Amendment / K.S.A. 22-2402) | Schreiner: facts known to officers (legally parked car, walking into woods, no other articulable facts) did not amount to particularized, objective reasonable suspicion; refusal to answer cannot supply suspicion. | Hodge/Smith: citizen report of suspicious vehicle, knowledge of similar prior incident and local crime justified investigation and detention. | Court: No—officers lacked reasonable suspicion; detention was not privileged under common law. |
| Whether K.S.A. 75-6104(e) discretionary-function immunity bars Schreiner's state-law tort claims despite lack of reasonable suspicion | Schreiner: immunity cannot apply where officers violated a mandatory statutory duty and the Fourth Amendment; reasonable-suspicion requirement is a mandatory constraint. | Hodge/Smith: determining whether reasonable suspicion exists is an in-the-field discretionary judgment grounded in training and policy; KTCA expressly immunizes discretionary functions "whether or not the discretion is abused." | Court: Yes—KTCA §75-6104(e) covers discretionary decisions like reasonable-suspicion determinations; immunity applies even if decision was mistaken, absent wanton/malicious conduct or a breach of a specific duty. |
| Whether exceptions to discretionary immunity apply (wanton/malicious conduct or breach of specific duty) | Schreiner: officers overstepped statutory/constitutional bounds, so exceptions should apply. | Hodge/Smith: no evidence of wanton or malicious conduct or any special relationship/specific duty owed to Schreiner. | Court: No exceptions apply—record contains no evidence of wanton/malicious conduct or a specific-duty/special-relationship; immunity stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established the reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (FTCA discretionary-function test; immunity where conduct is policy-based)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (FTCA framework: acts involving judgment or choice; focus on policy considerations)
- Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 (KTCA discretionary-function immunity applied to on-scene police judgment)
- Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73 (discusses mandatory guidelines vs. discretionary acts under KTCA)
- Andrade-Reyes, 309 Kan. 1048 (a person's refusal to answer during a voluntary encounter cannot be weighed as reasonable suspicion)
- Thomas v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 293 Kan. 208 (analysis focusing on nature/quality of discretion and policy orientation)
- Hopkins v. State, 237 Kan. 601 (wanton or malicious conduct falls outside discretionary-function immunity)