305 P.3d 35
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- Confidential informant advised PVPD of Vrabel hash sale; PVPD arranged and conducted a controlled buy in Leawood, Kansas using a Cl, money, and audio equipment.
- PVPD provided the buy money and arranged surveillance, without Leawood officers actively assisting during the buy itself.
- The buy occurred in Leawood, though PVPD officers remained outside; later PVPD retrieved the hash and wire in Prairie Village.
- Vrabel was charged with distribution of marijuana and use of a communication facility; Vrabel moved to suppress the evidence as outside PVPD’s jurisdiction.
- The district court granted suppression based on a finding that PVPD acted outside its jurisdiction with no Leawood assistance and no applicable statutory exception.
- Appellate proceedings ensued, with the State challenging the suppression and seeking reversal under Kansas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22-2401a applies to cross-jurisdiction investigations | Vrabel contends statute does not authorize cross-jurisdiction investigations. | PVPD argues the “request for assistance” or related exceptions permit the cross-jurisdiction buy. | Yes; PVPD's actions were authorized under 22-2401a(2)(b) as a request for assistance. |
| Whether the PVPD-Leawood arrangement fits the statutory exceptions | Vrabel asserts no valid exception applied. | PVPD argues the arrangement fell within the “request for assistance” and related exceptions. | The agreement constituted a valid “request for assistance” under 22-2401a(2)(b). |
| Whether suppression is the proper remedy for a statutory violation | Vrabel cites Sodders to justify suppression for statutory violation. | PVPD argues exclusionary relief is not required when constitutional rights aren’t violated. | Suppression is not the appropriate remedy for this statutory violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turner, 293 Kan. 1085 (2012) (statutory interpretation guiding avoidance of unreasonable results)
- State v. Rowe, 18 Kan. App. 2d 572 (1993) (oral agreements may constitute a “request for assistance”)
- State v. Sodders, 255 Kan. 79 (1993) (early ruling on 22-2401a; later legislative amendment not overruling deduction of remedy in Sodders)
- State v. Mendez, 275 Kan. 412 (2003) (interpretation of 22-2401a; county-wide exceptions)
- State v. Ross, 247 Kan. 191 (1990) (relevant to whether a request for assistance can be inferred)