State v. Sodders

• Decision Date: 06 August 1993
• Docket Number: No. 68931,68931
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Robert L. SODDERS, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

Page 1360

856 P.2d 1360

18 Kan.App.2d 657

STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Robert L. SODDERS, Appellee.

No. 68931.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Aug. 6, 1993.

Review Granted Sept. 28, 1993.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where there is a conflict between two statutes, the latest legislative expression controls.

2. K.S.A. 22-2401a(2) authorizes city law enforcement officers to exercise their powers outside the city limits of the city employing them (1) on property owned or

controlled by the city; (2) where they are in "fresh pursuit" of a person; or (3) where a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from the place for which assistance is requested.

3. K.S.A. 22-2401a(4), authorizing law enforcement officials of any jurisdiction within a county designated an urban area to execute a valid arrest warrant anywhere within the county, has no application to the execution of a search warrant by Overland Park detectives at an apartment located in Lenexa.

Stephen M. Howe, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul J. Morrison, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Michael J. Bartee, Asst. Dist. Defender, of Olathe, for appellee.

Before LEWIS, P.J., ROYSE, J., and C. FRED LORENTZ, District Judge, assigned.

ROYSE, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the State from a district court order suppressing evidence. The appeal concerns a search warrant obtained by Overland Park police detectives for an apartment in Lenexa. Before executing the warrant, the Overland Park detectives went to the Lenexa Police Department, told a Lenexa police sergeant that they were going to execute a search warrant in Lenexa, and requested assistance. The Lenexa Police Department dispatched three uniformed officers to provide security at the apartment.

One of the Overland Park detectives obtained a key from the apartment manager and used it to enter the residence. All five officers entered the apartment. The two Overland Park detectives conducted the search. The Lenexa officers did not participate in the search of the premises.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of the apartment. The district court sustained the motion, contending that the Overland Park detectives acted outside their jurisdiction in searching the Lenexa apartment.

This case involves the interpretation of two statutes. First, K.S.A. 22-2505 states: "A search warrant shall be issued in duplicate and shall be directed for execution to all law enforcement officers of the state, or to any law enforcement officer specifically named therein." The second statute involved is K.S.A. 22-2401a, which provides in pertinent part:

"(2) Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers:

"(a) Anywhere within the city limits of the city employing them and outside of such city when on property owned or under the control of such city; and

"(b) in any other place where a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from that place or when in fresh pursuit of a person."

The State relies on K.S.A. 22-2505 for the proposition the Overland Park detectives were acting within their authority in searching the Lenexa apartment. The State reads K.S.A. 22-2505 as authority for an officer to execute a warrant anywhere in the state. That statute admittedly requires that a warrant be directed to all law enforcement officers or to specifically named law enforcement officers. It thus modifies the common-law rule requiring that a search warrant be directed to a particular person and be executed only by that person. See U.S. v. Martin, 600 F.2d 1175, 1181 (5th Cir.1979). The statute places no limitation upon the territory in which an officer may operate.

The geographic limitation is contained in K.S.A. 22-2401a. That statute, instead of K.S.A. 22-2505, is operative here for three reasons. First, K.S.A. 22-2505 makes clear that search warrants must be executed by law enforcement officers; the statute does not purport to establish where an officer may execute a warrant. Second, even if K.S.A. 22-2505 and 22-2401a are understood to be in conflict, then the latest legislative expression controls. See Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. of Hays v. City of Yates Center, 229 Kan. 330, 338, 624 P.2d 971 (1981). The 1977 statute, 22-2401a, thus controls the 1970 enactment, 22-2505. Finally, 22-2401a reveals a clear intent by the legislature to limit the jurisdiction of certain law enforcement officers. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the expressed legislative intent. State v. Sleeth, 8 Kan.App.2d 652, 655, 664 P.2d 883 (1983). The language of 22-2505 cannot be read as an exception to the clear geographic limitation set forth in 22-2401a.

State v. Hennessee, 232 Kan. 807, 658 P.2d 1034 (1983), which addressed a similar problem, is instructive. In that case, the Pratt County Sheriff traveled to the Stafford County residence of the defendant and arrested her pursuant to a warrant. The Supreme Court determined that the Pratt County Sheriff acted beyond the statutory authority of K.S.A. 22-2401a. The specific limitation of 22-2401a was held to control over the general provision of K.S.A. 19-812, which requires a sheriff to execute, "according to law, all process, writs, precepts and orders issued or made by lawful authority and to him directed." The Supreme Court concluded:

"A sheriff may exercise his powers outside the county where he holds office in only two instances: (1) where he is in "fresh pursuit" of a person, or (2) where a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from the area for which such assistance is requested." 232 Kan. at 807, 658 P.2d 1034, Syl. p 2.

The State urges the adoption of the Illinois rule that police officers may execute a search warrant anywhere in the State, pointing out that K.S.A. 22-2505 is...