Title: State v. Ross
Citation: 247 Kan. 191, 795 P.2d 937
Docket Number: 64,402
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 1990

247 Kan. 191 (1990)
795 P.2d 937
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM E. ROSS, Appellee.
No. 64,402

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 13, 1990.
Kevin C. Fletcher, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Kerry J. Granger, of Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an appeal by the prosecution, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1), from the district court's dismissal of the complaint filed herein. The district court held that the South Hutchinson police officer who arrested the defendant in Hutchinson was not assisting Hutchinson police officers at the time and, hence, had no authority to arrest the defendant.
The pertinent statute is K.S.A. 22-2401a, which provides, in pertinent part:
*192 The evidence relied upon by the district court consisted of the joint affidavit of the two involved Hutchinson officers (Rankin and French) and the testimony of the arresting South Hutchinson officer (Stofer). Appellate review herein does not involve the reweighing of conflicting evidence. The underlying facts are not in dispute.
The joint affidavit states, in pertinent part:
The testimony of Officer Stofer was that he was on patrol when he received a call from his dispatcher to check and see if the warrant for William E. Ross was still active. The officer carried all active warrants in his patrol car. He confirmed the active status of the warrant and relayed that information to his dispatcher. He testified that the following events then occurred:
....
"A. Yes, sir.
....
"Q. And did you have him get into your patrol car?
"A. Yes, sir; I did.
"Q. And what did you do with him then at that time?
"Q. Had he forgotten anything?
"A. Yes, sir; he had.
"Q. What was still there?
"Q. Is that Ruth Divelbiss?
"Q. Did you perform a strip search?
"A. Yes, sir; we did.
....
"Q. Okay.
"A. Yes, sir.
"A. Yes, sir."
Note: The complaint involved in this appeal contains three drug-related charges, which all arise from the items taken from defendant's person upon arrest on the traffic warrant.
We continue with excerpts from Officer Stofer's testimony:
"A. That's correct. They were currently 
"Q. How were you helping them?
In concluding that Officer Stofer had no authority to arrest the defendant in Hutchinson, the district court stated:
The district court appears to have engrafted an additional requirement onto K.S.A. 22-2401a(2)(b). That is, a request of assistance must arise from facts demonstrating an actual need for assistance from outside the requesting officer's jurisdiction. There is nothing in the statute demonstrating that such was the legislative intent.
The Hutchinson Fire Department was at the scene to put out a suspicious fire. The two Hutchinson police officers were at the scene to investigate the circumstances of the fire and control traffic problems arising therefrom. From the evidence, it is apparent *195 they believed these activities were a two-person job. With the active warrant being disclosed on a person they were interviewing, and a resultant duty to arrest the person, they apparently concluded the two-person job had become a three-person job. They asked the South Hutchinson police department to assist by sending personnel to make the arrest. This was the decision of the officers from Hutchinson who were on the scene. It is not necessary to establish that the need existed or that the Hutchinson police department did not have additional personnel available  only that the request for assistance was made. That request granted authority to Officer Stofer to enter Hutchinson and provide the requested assistance  the execution of the arrest warrant.
The facts herein are readily distinguishable from those in State v. Hennessee, 232 Kan. 807, 658 P.2d 1034 (1983). In Hennessee, the Pratt County Sheriff arrested Ms. Hennessee in Stafford County on a Pratt County warrant. Stafford County law enforcement made no request to the Pratt County Sheriff for assistance and, alternatively, the Pratt County Sheriff was not operating in "fresh pursuit" as authorized by K.S.A. 22-2401a(2)(b). The majority of this court held the district court properly dismissed the complaint as the arresting officer lacked jurisdiction to execute the warrant.
We conclude that the district court erred when it held that Officer Stofer lacked jurisdiction to make the arrest and in dismissing the complaint as a result of that conclusion.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.