KS: A statute may grant more rights than the 4A and it should be followed

A statute may grant citizens more protection than the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution, and it must be followed. If state law is silent, then the Fourth Amendment or state constitution govern. City of Dodge City v. Webb, 2016 Kan. LEXIS 477 (Oct. 21, 2016) (see Treatise § 11.03 n.4):

We also deem it important to recognize that this particular question of statutory interpretation is posed against a backdrop of constitutional law. That is, it is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that sets forth: (1) the minimal requirements which must be met prior to the issuance of a warrant; and (2) the minimal protections of the individual right not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. See also Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 15. When law enforcement officers properly authorized to execute the state’s police power act within minimal constitutional parameters (both federal and state), such acts have a presumption of lawfulness unless expressly prohibited by a state’s enactment of greater protections for its citizens.

We recently clarified our interpretive process when evaluating such interplay between a constitutional baseline and what is alleged to be a statutory overlay that further restricts the permissible acts of law enforcement.

“When a statute … affords citizens of Kansas greater protections against searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the statute governs the permissible scope of state action. When such statutes are either silent or merely codify the federal constitutional standard, however, it is proper for courts to determine the permissibility of state action as a matter of constitutional law.” James, 301 Kan. 898, Syl. ¶ 1.