State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley
| Decision Date | 27 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 974., No. 84, No. 573 |
| Citation | 22 P.3d 124,271 Kan. 355 |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. CARLA J. STOVALL, Appellee, v. DAVID R. MENELEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Margie J. Phelps, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Jonathan B. Phelps, of Phelps-Chartered, of Topeka, was with her on the brief for appellant.
M. J. Willoughby, assistant attorney general, argued the cause, and John R. Dowell, assistant attorney general, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is a quo warranto action to oust the defendant, David R. Meneley, from the office of Sheriff of Shawnee County, Kansas. The case was heard by two trial judges who found the State had sustained its burden of proof on 3 of 13 counts and entered an order of ouster from office. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8.02 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 55) (transferred to Supreme Court on motion) and K.S.A. 20-3016(a)(2), (3), and (4). Meneley raises 14 issues on appeal.
The trial judges unanimously found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Meneley committed willful misconduct, as contemplated in K.S.A. 60-1205(1), in that he knowingly and willfully concealed evidence of Deputy Timothy Oblander's theft of drug evidence from the sheriffs office, he willfully gave false testimony under oath at an Attorney General's inquisition by denying his knowledge of Oblander's illegal drug use and treatment for drug addiction, and he willfully gave false testimony under oath in the Shawnee County District Court by denying that he had any knowledge regarding Oblander's illegal drug use and treatment for drug addiction.
In November 1992, Meneley was elected Sheriff of Shawnee County, Kansas. Meneley was elected a second time in November 1996, and continued in office until the ouster order at issue here.
In 1993, Meneley created a special services unit, which, in addition to investigating burglaries, provided manpower for surveillance support for the narcotics unit. Oblander and Scott Baker were original members assigned to the special services unit that included a K-9 program, which was Oblander's original assignment in the unit. Between January 1993 and May 1994, the Shawnee County Sheriff's office narcotics unit included Detective Daniel Jaramillo, Detective Scott Holladay, and Deputy Phil Blume. Captain Roger Lovelace was the division commander of both the special services unit and narcotics unit. In late 1993 or early 1994, Oblander started consuming small amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine, taking the drugs from the evidence packets used to train his dog. Drug evidence was checked out to Oblander, as a K-9 officer, for months at a time. He carried the drugs with him daily. The drugs were weighed when they were checked in or out. On two occasions, there was a weight discrepancy in the drugs. These discrepancies were supposed to be noted on reports signed by the property room officer and Oblander, but nothing was ever done to resolve the discrepancies.
In late 1994 or early 1995, Oblander began making drug buys on the street. Oblander occasionally consumed some of the drugs that he purchased on the street. Oblander testified that he never used the drugs in the presence of anyone else, not even his partner, Frank Good, nor did he tell anyone about his drug use.
In May or June 1994, Jaramillo and Blume were assigned to the FBI Federal Drug Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional task force engaged in undercover narcotics operations. During their time with the task force, Jaramillo and Blume would report back to the sheriffs office to provide information and update Meneley regarding their activities. Jaramillo and Blume met with Meneley in November 1994, February 1995, and July 1995.
In late July 1994, Officer J.D. Sparkman retrieved a bag of evidence from the drug evidence locker located at the sheriff's office in the basement of the Shawnee County Courthouse. The evidence was from the Caldwell case which involved state and federal drug charges. After weighing the evidence, Sparkman determined that some of the cocaine evidence was missing. The officer assigned to the Caldwell case was Holladay. Holladay had checked out the evidence on June 22, 1994, for use in federal court proceedings which ended in a judgment of acquittal for Caldwell. After returning from federal court on July 5, 1994, Holladay held the Caldwell cocaine evidence in his desk until July 15, 1994, and eventually put the drugs in the evidence locker. An earlier related state court proceeding had ended in a plea in January 1992. Thus, by the time Sparkman retrieved the drugs from the evidence locker, all litigation concerning the drug evidence had been concluded. The Caldwell drugs were slated for use in the K-9 program or destruction. Upon discovering the missing cocaine, Sparkman contacted Holladay. The missing cocaine was reported to Meneley, who ordered an internal investigation. The investigation was assigned to Detective Mike Ramirez.
During the investigation, Holladay told Ramirez that he had checked the drugs before putting them in the locker. They were all in the bag and the bag was intact.
Ramirez was unable to determine who took the cocaine from the Caldwell evidence. On August 15, 1994, he closed the investigation and placed it on "inactive" status.
Oblander was never questioned or investigated because there was nothing linking him to the evidence locker. On November 22, 1999, Oblander gave a detailed statement to the Shawnee County District Attorney as part of a diversion agreement to resolve perjury charges filed against him earlier in 1999. During the interview, Oblander was asked several times if he took the Caldwell drugs. Each time he stated that he did not.
On November 23, 1999, Oblander returned to the district attorney's office on his own volition, bringing his wife and a minister. He advised the district attorney that he had to "get something off his chest" and make peace with God. Oblander then told the district attorney that he had, in fact, taken the Caldwell drugs. Oblander told the district attorney that he took the drugs from Holladay's unlocked desk drawer. He tore open the brown paper bag containing all the evidence, tore a KBI seal off an inner plastic bag holding small bags of cocaine, and took three or four of the small bags. Oblander admitted that he took the cocaine before the evidence was placed in the evidence locker on July 15, 1994.
On May 12, 1995, Oblander was reported missing by his partner, Good. Good advised Meneley that he had not seen Oblander since the night before and did not know where he was. A search was made and Oblander was found that afternoon in his truck in Silver Lake, Kansas. Oblander told officers that he had had a fight with his wife and had stayed out all night. Oblander smelled like alcohol, was quiet, red-eyed, and disheveled.
Meneley directed a local health care provider to examine Oblander. Oblander was not permitted to return to work until the mental health care provider cleared him. On May 24, 1995, the mental health care provider released Oblander back to work. In a letter, Dr. Stephen H. Blum said he had treated Oblander for "mild depression" since May 15, 1995. The letter further said: Based on the letter from Dr. Blum, Oblander returned to work.
On or about June 27, 1995, Oblander entered Valley Hope Treatment Center in Atchison, Kansas. Meneley, Baker, and Mickey Brokaw went to visit him at the treatment center for 45 minutes. Oblander testified that Meneley did not bring up the subject of drugs, so he did not bring it up.
When Oblander finished treatment, he returned to work at the sheriff's office. By a mutual agreement among him, his treatment counselor, and Meneley, he was reassigned from narcotics to warrants.
In January or February 1996, Jaramillo and Blume told Assistant District Attorney Tony Rues that drug evidence had been taken from the evidence locker at the sheriff's office and that Meneley was covering up the evidence misuse.
Rues reported this information to District Attorney Joan Hamilton and asked her, on behalf of Jaramillo and Blume, to notify the Attorney General's office that drugs had been taken from the evidence locker in 1994 so that an investigation could be conducted.
On February 13, 1996, Hamilton wrote a letter to Attorney General Carla Stovall asking her to investigate missing drugs in a federal case concluded in 1994.
As a result of Hamilton's letter, Stovall asked the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) to conduct an investigation. On March 25, 1996, KBI Director Larry Welch met with Meneley in his office to advise him the investigation would take place. Meneley pledged full cooperation. On or about March 26, 1996, Meneley met with KBI investigators in his office, again agreeing to cooperate in the investigation. At the conclusion of this meeting, Meneley arranged for KBI investigators to meet with Jaramillo and Blume to schedule an interview. During the interviews, Jaramillo and Blume told investigators that Meneley had told them in July 1995 that he knew Oblander was using drugs and had stolen drugs. Eventually, the investigation turned into an inquisition conducted by Assistant Attorney General David Debenham.
During the period this investigation was occurring, additional drugs were found missing from the evidence locker at the sheriff's office. Meneley directed his staff to notify the KBI so it could include this in its investigation. Meneley also directed that an internal investigation begin.
During the inquisition, Oblander took the Fifth Amendment. Meneley testified at the inquisition on April 11, 1996....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harsch v. Miller
...held that discretion is abused when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court. State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 368, 22 P.3d 124 (2001). KDOT observes that "a stay in a civil case is an extraordinary remedy," quoting Meneley, 271 Kan. at 367, 22 P......
-
State v. Spencer
...is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted.’ State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 378, 22 P.3d 124 (2001). For this reason, when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts ‘need not resort to statutory construc......
-
Herrell v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co. Llc, 99,451.
...is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted.’ State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 378, 22 P.3d 124 (2001). For this reason, when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts ‘need not resort to statutory construc......
-
State Of Kan. v. Gonzalez
...the factfinder of otherwise relevant information. In re Bryan, 275 Kan. 202, 222, 61 P.3d 641 (2003) (citing State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 373, 22 P.3d 124 [2001] ). In contrast, an attorney's ethical duty of client confidentiality arises under the Kansas Rules of Professi......
-
Kansas Sunshine Law: How Bright Does it Shine Now? - Part 2
...and Theresa Nuckolls, Recall of Local Officials in Kansas, 70. J. Kan. Bar Assn. 8, 18 (2001). [172] State ex rel Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 22 P.3d 124 (2001) (sheriff found to have knowingly and willfully concealed evidence of deputy's theft of drug evidence from the sheriff's offi......
-
Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege in Kansas Proceedings: Application of the Privilege and Rebutting the Imposition of Adverse Inferences
...on the assertion of the privilege, and thus did not compel analysis of the issue created by the language in K.S.A. 60-439). 52. 271 Kan. 355, 22 P.2d 124 (2001). 53. Id. at 369. 54. 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995), citing, Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. at 318. As discussed infra at n.37, ......
-
Ethically Speaking the Work Product Doctrine(fn1)
...Cal.App.2d 7, 10 (C.A.1st.Cal. 1968); see also, In Re Sealed Case, 29 F.3d 715, 718 (D.C.Cir. 1994). 16 State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 374, 22 P.3d 124, 141 (Kan. 2001). 17 Hickman v. Taylor, 325 U.S., at 510. 18 A decision to waive the protection of the work product doctri......