 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lakin11/5/2004
No appearance for the appellee.
Jesse Lakin was charged with with one count each of driving under the influence, transporting an open container, and consumption of alcoholic beverage by a minor. Prior to trial, the magistrate judge granted Lakin's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the arresting officer's lack of authority to make an arrest outside of his jurisdiction. The State appealed to the district court, which upheld the magistrate judge's dismissal. The State appeals the dismissal of the charges. We reverse and remand.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On July 10, 2003, at around 2:00 a.m., dispatch notified Larned Police Officer Nielander of a possible intoxicated driver in a white pickup truck with Kansas license plates PDC 274, traveling north from the intersection of 14th Street and Broadway. Nielander arrived at the intersection about 1 minute later.
Upon turning north on Broadway, Nielander saw the taillights of what he believed to be a pickup truck traveling northbound. He believed the truck was approaching the Larned city limits. Nielander continued to travel north and watch the taillights when he saw the brake lights activate and a "large cloud" of dust rise from the shoulder of the road. When he reached the location of the dust cloud, he determined that the truck had turned west off of the paved road and onto a gravel road.
Nielander radioed Larned Police Captain Larry Attebury, and "requested permission to pursue westbound outside the city limits to conduct a safety check, in the event said vehicle happened to travel off the gravel roadway and/or was involved in a traffic accident." Attebury requested that Officer Nielander stand by and await approval from Pawnee County Sheriff's Deputy Micheal Knauf. Knauf "granted verbal permission to pursue" and stated that he was in route to the scene.
Soon thereafter, Nielander came upon Lakin and another individual in a parking lot standing beside a white pickup truck bearing the same license plates as those mentioned in the original dispatch report. Nielander immediately detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the two individuals and Lakin's truck. The truck engine was idling. In response to Nielander's questions, Lakin said he had been driving. Both individuals acknowledged they had been drinking but not much.
At this point, Atteberry and Knauf arrived and Nielander began to conduct a series of field sobriety tests, which Lakin consented to. Based on the results of these tests, Nielander informed Lakin that he was under arrest for DUI.
The district court ruled that Nielander lacked jurisdiction to arrest Lakin in that he was acting outside of his jurisdiction and was neither in "fresh pursuit" of Lakin, nor had Nielander received a "request for assistance" from the county as required by K.S.A. 22-2401a(2)(b).
A question of statutory interpretation is a question of law over which this court may exercise unlimited review. State v. Maass, 275 Kan. 328, 330, 64 P.3d 382 (2003). The controlling facts in this case are undisputed; therefore, this court's review of conclusions of law is unlimited. Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 177, 83 P.3d 214 (2004).
**2 K.S.A.2003 Supp. 22-2401a(2) reads in part: "Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers ... (b) in any other place when a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from that place or when in fresh pursuit of a person." (Emphasis added.)
The State concedes that the "fresh pursuit" exception does not apply on these facts because "the officer waited to pursue the suspect vehicle until he received permission from the Pawnee County Sheriff's Department."
We view the crucial question then as whether under t
Page 1 2 Kansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|