Volume 267 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. DAMAGES — <italic>Punitive Damages — Amendment of</italic> <italic>Petition to Claim Punitive Damages — Trial Court</italic> <italic>Discretion — Appellate Review.</italic> Under K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-3703</cross_reference>, the decision whether to permit a plaintiff to amend a petition to claim punitive damages is discretionary in that the statute provides that the court <italic>may</italic> allow the filing of an amended petition claiming punitive damages. Thus, the standard of review on appeal is one of abuse of discretion. 2. SAME — <italic>Punitive Damages — Assessment against</italic> <italic>Principal or Employer for Acts of Agent or Employee.</italic> In no case shall exemplary or punitive damages be assessed pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-3702</cross_reference>(d) against a principal or employer for the acts of an agent or employee unless the questioned conduct was authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on behalf of the principal or employer. 3. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE — <italic>Employer's Liability for</italic> <italic>Employee's Questioned Conduct — Express or Implied</italic> <italic>Authorization by Employer.</italic> Authorization is generally accomplished before or during the employee's questioned conduct and may be based on an express grant of authority or on a course of conduct implying authority. 4. SAME — <italic>Employers' Liability for Employee's Questioned</italic> <italic>Conduct — Ratification of Employee's Conduct by Employer.</italic> Ratification is more likely accomplished during or after the questioned conduct and may be express or implied. 5. BANKS AND BANKING — <italic>Negligent Repossession Motor Vehicle</italic> <italic>in Which Bank Did Not Have Security Interest — Bank Did Not</italic> <italic>Authorize or Ratify Employee's Improper Conduct in Effecting</italic> <italic>Repossession.</italic> In this case, a bank employee's improper actions in repossessing a motor vehicle the bank did not have a security interest in were not authorized or ratified by a person empowered to do so on behalf of the bank. 6. SAME — <italic>Negligent Repossession of Motor Vehicle in Which</italic> <italic>Bank Did Not Have Security Interest — Trial Court Did Not</italic> <italic>Error in Denying Plaintiff's Request to Claim Punitive Damages</italic> <italic>against Bank.</italic> Where a bank negligently repossessed a vehicle in which it did not have a security interest and returned it to the rightful owner as soon as the mistake was known, it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to allow the owner of the car to amend his petition for conversion to claim punitive damages from the bank.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Constitutional Protections of Convicted</italic> <italic>Prisoners.</italic> Convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections because of their conviction and confinement. 2. PENAL INSTITUTIONS — <italic>Constitutional Rights of Prisoners</italic> <italic>— Limitations.</italic> Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights of prisoners, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. The limitations on the exercise of constitutional rights arise both from the fact of incarceration and from valid penological objectives, including deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and institutional security. 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — <italic>Search and Seizure — Test of</italic> <italic>Reasonableness.</italic> The Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable. What is reasonable depends on all circumstances surrounding the search itself. The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. Thus, the permissibility of a particular practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. 4. PENAL INSTITUTIONS — <italic>Plethysmograph Testing of</italic> <italic>Prisoner — Sexual Abuse Treatment Program —</italic> <italic>Constitutional Considerations.</italic> Plethysmograph testing of inmates as part of an overall sexual abuse treatment program implicates the right to privacy and bodily integrity under the Fourth Amendment. 5. SAME — <italic>Constitutional Rights of Prisoners —</italic> <italic>Prison Regulation — Rational Basis Test.</italic> The standard of review for prisoners' constitutional claims where it is determined that a prison regulation implicates an inmate's constitutional rights is a rational basis test. The rational basis test requires that there be a valid and rational connection between the regulation and the penological interest offered to justify the regulation.<page_number>Page 798</page_number> 6. SAME — <italic>Prison Regulation — Reasonableness Test.</italic> In determining the reasonableness of a prison regulation, several factors are relevant: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the asserted right remain open to the inmate; (3) the impact the accommodation of the asserted right will have on guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources generally; (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives to the regulation. 7. SAME — <italic>Plethysmograph Testing of Prisoner — No</italic> <italic>Infringement of Prisoner's Constitutional Right to Privacy under</italic> <italic>Facts.</italic> The record is examined and it is <italic>held</italic>: Plethysmograph testing as a part of the Lansing Correctional Facility's Sexual Abuse Treatment Program does not infringe on an inmate's Fourth Amendment right to privacy.