Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2002/2002-007.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:46:01+00:00

Document:
K.S.A. 22-2401a authorizes local law enforcement officers to provide law enforcement assistance on federal enclave property when requested to do so by the appropriate federal entity or agency with jurisdiction over the federal property in question. While liability is always a fact specific issue, in general and in most situations, we believe that if a local or state law enforcement officer acts within the scope of the officer's duties in accordance with a request for assistance from and an agreement with the proper federal authorities, the Kansas Tort Claims Act would cover such actions and officer. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-4111; 19-805; 19-813; K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-2401; 22-2401a; K.S.A. 75-711, as amended by L. 2001, Ch. 66, § 1; K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 75-712; K.S.A. 75-6101; K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 75-6104; K.S.A. 75-6116; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3052, 3053; 28 U.S.C. §§ 33, 531.
You request our opinion on an issue involving the respective jurisdiction of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies at the Parsons, Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (PKAAP), and you seek clarification on what can be done if an incident occurs within the confines of that facility necessitating a request for a local law enforcement response. You note that you have been contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning what response could be made by Kansas law enforcement officers if an emergency occurred at that site. You inform us that the FBI would ordinarily be the appropriate federal agency to respond in such an emergency, but that the closest FBI offices are quite a distance away. Thus, the FBI is interested in entering into a memorandum of understanding between PKAAP, Parsons Police Department and the Labette County Sheriff's office, with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) also assisting if necessary. You state as a given fact that the PKAAP property is indeed subject to federal law enforcement jurisdiction (as a "federal enclave").(1) You also ask about civil liability in such a situation.
We must first examine the scope of authority, and jurisdiction, of the various types of law enforcement officers who may assist in responding to or investigating matters, generally and then within the confines of the PKAAP property.
K.S.A. 12-4111 vests law enforcement officers employed by Kansas cities with the power to detain persons, to place them in custody and to arrest them for violation of municipal ordinances. K.S.A. 22-2401 sets forth the circumstances under which a "law enforcement officer" may make an arrest in the State of Kansas. The law enforcement jurisdiction of these various Kansas officers is further defined and limited by the jurisdictional boundaries established in K.S.A. 22-2401a.
"(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.
Your second issue concerns civil liability issues. You ask "[w]ould state and local law enforcement officers so called upon to protect the public safety in a crisis situation at the PKAAP be doing so as 'law enforcement officers' for legal, employment and civil liability purposes."
The issue of when or if a particular act or officer is within the scope of that officer's employment is first and foremost a fact issue. However, given the above discussion, we believe that the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA)(13) would apply to officers and acts performed in furtherance of the contemplated request and agreement.(14) K.S.A. 75-6116 provides for the defense and payment of liability and defense costs of employee in civil cases. It provides for some immunities and coverage "[i]f an employee of a governmental entity is or could be subject to personal civil liability on account of a noncriminal act or omission which is within the scope of the employee's employment and which allegedly violates the civil rights laws of the United States or of the state of Kansas, the governmental entity. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 75-6104 states that a governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment shall not be liable for damages resulting from the activities listed therein. Whether or not the activity in question falls within those listed is a fact issue.
As to the last part of your second question, we again would need all the facts to determine who employs the officer and whether they would still be considered a federal, state or local law enforcement officer. A request from the FBI for assistance from local law enforcement officers could be pursuant to an arrangement whereby the FBI cross-deputizes and/or takes affirmative steps to control the behaviors of the local law enforcement officers. If such is the case, we believe the officers would be acting in the capacity of federal officers. However, an agreement may also be formulated so that the employer would remain the state or local law enforcement entity employing the officer.
In summary, it is our opinion that K.S.A. 22-2401a authorizes local law enforcement officers to provide law enforcement assistance on federal enclave property when requested to do so by the appropriate federal entity or agency with jurisdiction over the federal property in question.
1. Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596 (1940); Orlovetz v. Day and Zimmerman, Inc., 18 Kan.App.2d 142 (1993).
2. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3053 (powers of federal marshals and deputies).
3. K.S.A. 74-2108 and 75-2113 set forth the scope of authority vested in the Kansas State Highway Patrol. Highway patrol officers are vested with authority pursuant to K.S.A. 74-2108. Capitol area security officers are authorized to act pursuant to K.S.A.75-4503 and university police officers are empowered by K.S.A. 76-726.
5. 23 Kan. 32 (1879).
6. Id. at 36. See also Attorney General Opinion No. 96-82. This general principle expressed in Morrell was cited and followed in Torson v. Baehni, 134 Kan. 186 (1931) and Dunfield v. School District 72 in Coffey County, 138 Kan. 800 (1934).
7. 218 Kan. 637 (1976).
8. Shienle was favorably cited in the even more recent case of State v. Miller, 257 Kan. 844 (1995).
9. A sheriff may exercise his powers outside his county : (1) when he is in "fresh pursuit" of a person; or (2) when a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from the area for which such assistance is requested. State v. Hennessee, 232 Kan. 807 (1983).
10. A similar situation was before the Kansas Supreme Court in City of Junction City v. Riley, 240 Kan. 614 (1987). The defendant in that case did not raise, and the court did not address, the question of whether a warrantless arrest for an offense viewed outside the officer's territorial jurisdiction was lawful.
11. K.S.A. 22-2403(2). See also State v. Shienle, 218 Kan. 637 (1976); State v. Phoenix, 428 So.2d 262 (Fla.1982) (law enforcement officers could make "citizen's arrests" even though in uniform and marked police car).
12. As you have not requested our advice on the issue of cross-deputization or memoranda of understanding, we will not address those issues. However, we note that both may be appropriate in this situation.
13. K.S.A. 75-6010 et seq.
14. Subject to the limitations of the Kansas Tort Claims Act, each governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be liable under the laws of this state. Woodruff v. City of Ottawa, 263 Kan. 557 (1997).
15. There may be some liability if misconduct is committed in the performance of an official act. See Monroe v. Darr, 221 Kan. 281 (1977) (a sheriff may be liable for deputies' warrantless entry into plaintiff's home where there was no probable cause, no exigent circumstances, and plaintiff did not consent to the entry); Libby v. Schmidt, 179 Kan. 683 (1956) (a deputy sheriff held liable for planting evidence and then falsely using this planted evidence as a basis for a criminal complaint against plaintiff); Duran v. Mission Mortuary, 174 Kan. 565 (1953) (a deputy sheriff held liable for driving the sheriff's vehicle in a negligent manner and thereby contributing to an accident); Frankhouser v. Cannon, 50 Kan. 621 (1893) (a sheriff could be liable for his deputy's levy of property not authorized by the writ of execution).
16. Liability arises only when an officer breaches a specific affirmative duty owed to a particular person. Hendrix v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 113 (1982); see McAllister & Robinson, The Potential Civil Liability of Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies, 67 J.K.B.A. 14, 17 (Sept. 1998).

References: § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3053
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.