State v. Vrabel
301 Kan. 797
Kan.2015Background
- Prairie Village officers arranged and funded a controlled drug buy with a CI in Leawood, outside PVPD's city limits.
- Hashish was purchased from Vrabel in Leawood; PVPD did not accompany or contact Vrabel at the time of the buy, but later conveyed the result to Leawood police via a phone chain.
- Vrabel was charged in Johnson County with distribution of marijuana and use of a communication facility to sell a controlled substance.
- The district court suppressed the hashish, the CI audio, and photos, concluding PVPD acted outside their jurisdiction under 22-2401a(2).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, suggesting an implied request for assistance from Leawood to Prairie Village; Vrabel sought review.
- The Supreme Court held PVPD exceeded jurisdiction, but suppression was not the appropriate remedy for the statutory violation; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did PVPD exceed jurisdiction under 22-2401a by arranging a Leawood buy? | Vrabel argued no jurisdictional breach; the State's position relied on ambits of 22-2401a(2). | Vrabel contends the PVPD acted outside employment city limits; no valid exception applied. | PVPD exceeded statutory jurisdiction. |
| Is suppression of evidence the proper remedy for a 22-2401a violation? | Vrabel did not allege Fourth Amendment rights; statutory violation should not mandate suppression. | Suppression may be warranted where jurisdictional violations occur. | Suppression is not the appropriate remedy here. |
| Does Sodders or the 'request for assistance' interpretation control? | Majority’s view supported implied assistance under 22-2401a(2)(b). | Concurrence/disagreement showed no valid request for assistance; notification alone is insufficient. | Sodders and related rules not controlling; suppression reversed on different grounds. |
| Does the Johnson County bordering municipalities exception apply? | Vrabel’s claim not framed around this exception. | Exception could apply when crime is in view; PVPD had anticipated crime outside their city. | Not applicable here; exception did not apply to anticipatory views of crime. |
| Does 22-2401a apply to nonsearch extraterritorial conduct like arranging a buy? | Statute intended to govern broader extraterritorial actions by city officers. | Statute limits should protect local autonomy; broad readings are unwarranted. | Statutory limits prevail; extraterritorial buy not authorized; but remedy not exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 257 Kan. 844 (1995) (outside- jurisdiction arrest treated as private person; limits on extraterritorial police power)
- State v. Sodders, 255 Kan. 79 (1994) (statutory 22-2401a exclusionary remedy not implied; evidentiary suppression context)
- Rowe, 18 Kan. App. 2d 572 (1993) (acquiescence not enough; need explicit request for assistance)
- Burnett, 300 Kan. 419 (2014) (Fourth Amendment considerations; legitimacy of police actions; contextual guidance)
- Phillips, 299 Kan. 479 (2014) (statutory interpretation; plain language and legislative intent)