on. See, id. at 32-33. 6 . Schreiber apparently stopped two of the suspects, but they escaped while he was distracted by the third, who was going behind a car. When Schreiber turned his attention back to the two who were escaping, the third suspect ran off. See, Schreiber deposition, pp. 30-31. 7 . The only testimony relating to the apprehension of the suspects was elicited from Collier, who indicated that he had "heard” that the suspects were apprehended, and that it would have been handled through the detective bureau. Collier deposition, p. 115. 8 . There is some disagreement regarding the relevance of state law for purposes of determining appropriate constitutional standards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compare, Jacobs v. City of Wichita, 531 F.Supp. 129, 130-132 & n. 4 (D.Kan.1982) (<HOLDING>); and Jones v. Marshall, 528 F.2d 132 (2d
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding state law irrelevant holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law