Wrongful death case against KC Priest goes forward.

The three year statute of limitations for wrongful death in Missouri was suspended in this case due to the "fraudulent concealment" of the diocese when it supposedly covered up the abuse.  That line pretty much says it all.  The saga continues for O'Brien who has been the subject of numerous abuse cases.  In this case it appears that a young man was killed via gunshot wound at the age of 14, and the parents are suing claiming that abuse of the priest caused the death.  Hopefully they get everything they are due. 

Here is the article in the Kansas City Star.

Wrongful-Death Lawsuit in priest abuse can proceed, judge rules

By: Judy Thomas

A wrongful-death lawsuit alleging that a boy took his life decades ago because of repeated sexual abuse by a Kansas City priest can proceed, a judge ruled this week.  The statute of limitations for wrongful death is three years in Missouri.  But in his order, Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners held as valid the argument of the boys’ parents that the statute of limitations should be suspended because of the defendants’ cover-up, fraud and concealment of the priest’s alleged abuse of their son and other children.  The judge dismissed the parents’ other claims that the priest and the diocese deprived their son of “a material chance of surviving.”  Don and Rosemary Teeman filed the case against Monsignor Thomas O’Brien and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph last September after someone who served as an altar boy with their son, Brian, told them of the alleged abuse.

Brian Teeman, 14, died of a gunshot wound in November 1983 at the family’s home in Independence. The diocese and O’Brien filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that too much time had passed. “I feel this win on the motion to dismiss is a big, big plus for our case to get justice for our son, Brian, and for all the victims who are also trying to get justice,” Don Teeman told The Kansas City Star. “God has started to answer our prayers.”  The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, is thought to be the first wrongful-death case in Missouri involving priest sexual abuse in which the statute of limitations could be suspended based on “fraudulent concealment,” said Rebecca Randles, the Teemans’ attorney.

“This is a victory for us in a big way,” Randles said. “This means the case can move forward.” The diocese issued this statement in response to the order: “This procedural ruling did not make any finding as to the factual allegations made by the plaintiffs, and the diocese will continue to defend the case.” The lawsuit says the diocese shares responsibility for Brian Teeman’s death because officials knew that O’Brien was sexually abusing boys but covered it up.  O’Brien, who has been the subject of more than two dozen sexual abuse lawsuits since 2004, has repeatedly denied that he abused any boys. His attorney, Gerald McGonagle, was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.  The diocese has said that it received a complaint in September 1983 accusing O’Brien of sexual misconduct with a teenage boy and that O’Brien denied any wrongdoing. O’Brien was removed from his assignment as pastor of Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in October 1983 and sent for psychological evaluation and treatment, the diocese said.

After completing treatment, O’Brien returned to the diocese in June 1984 and was allowed to serve only as a part-time hospital chaplain, the diocese said. He continued in that position until 2002. Later that year, the bishop at that time, Raymond J. Boland, told O’Brien that he could no longer present himself as a priest.
When they filed the lawsuit, the Teemans said they didn’t know about the sexual abuse or the reason for Brian’s suicide until Jon David Couzens, the former altar boy, contacted them in 2011. The lawsuit alleges that O’Brien forced Brian Teeman and three other boys to perform sexual acts in the sacristy at Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church in Independence. The abuse began when Brian was 11 and continued until he graduated from eighth grade, the lawsuit alleges. It says O’Brien warned the boys that if they ever told, they would be kicked out of the church, be disowned by their parents and go to hell.  Couzens also filed a lawsuit last summer alleging sexual abuse by O’Brien. A ruling on motions to dismiss his case is pending.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/29/3683190/ruling-wrongful-death-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

DUI charges dismissed against former KU/ Former Pro Football player.

It looks like the Douglas County District Attorney dismissed the DUI charge against former KU football player and Pro Football player Elvis Patterson.  It turns out that after reviewing the tape of the DUI case shot by the officer's dash cam and in light of the defendant's medical condition the Prosecutors determined that there was not enough evidence to pursue a conviction.  It just goes to show you that you don't have to be drunk to fail a field sobriety test.  Like any physical test there are many different factors that  can contribute to a negative response to a directive by an officer.  These tests are very subjective and we always recommend that anyone that is pulled over by the police and suspected of a DUI to refuse the field sobriety tests.  You are not required to take them so don't give the police anymore evidence against you.

Here is the article that this post was derived from.

Prosecutors dismiss DUI charge against former KU, Pro Football Player
By Chad Diepenbrock

Douglas County prosecutors Thursday dismissed a DUI charge against former Kansas University and NFL football player Elvis Patterson related to a June 4, 2011, traffic stop east of Lawrence. Patterson, 51, Lenexa, pleaded guilty two traffic infractions, refusing a preliminary breath test and speeding for going 12 mph over the limit on Kansas Highway 10. District Judge Michael Malone ordered Patterson to pay $260 in fines and court costs.

Assistant District Attorney Greg Benefiel said prosecutors agreed to dismiss the DUI count after reviewing a video of the stop. Patterson had communicated to Douglas County Sheriff’s officers he had a medical condition that affected his ability to perform field sobriety tests, the prosecutor said. “We determined that the case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” Benefiel said. Patterson’s attorney John Ivan earlier this year filed a civil petition contending Patterson told officers he had a medical condition and a disability that made it “impossible for him to perform the balance and coordination tests.” Ivan also wrote in the petition a patrol car video recorded only officers at the scene and not Patterson. Patterson was a KU defensive back from 1981 to 1983 and won Super Bowls as a member of the 1986 New York Giants and 1993 Dallas Cowboys.

New DUI law in Kansas looks to be unconstitutional.

Kansas we have a problem.  The new DUI law.  Now I know what your thinking…Drinking and driving is bad and we shouldn’t encourage it.  I agree.  But this is not the way.  Right now if you refuse a breath test at a traffic stop there are penalties.  Many municipalities have made it a city code violation to refuse a test at the car and they have made it punishable by a fine.  Also, a refusal to take an intoxilyzer after arrested will have serious implications on your driver’s license.  But this law goes further, it criminalizes a refusal to take the intoxilyzer and make is have a jail penalty just like a DUI conviction.

That is bad news and let me tell you why.  It’s a thing called the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment #5

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I believe that this new law runs contrary to your constitutional rights.  Primarily the fifth amendment as it basically is forcing you to provide evidence against yourself in a criminal case.  It has been a long held maxim that you don’t have to cooperate with an investigation that is trying to put you in jail.  This new law is requiring you to do just that.  If you take the test you are providing evidence that you have violated the law. The prosecutors and legislators are eroding your constitutionally protected rights.  This law will surely be challenged on its constitutionality.  If you find yourself in a situation where you need a DUI lawyer give us a call and we can fight for your rights.  Here is the article that inspired this post.

New law in Kansas targets repeat drunken drivers

By Tom Izzo

“Professional drunks,” Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe calls drivers who habitually consume alcohol before getting behind the wheel.  And a new law, which Howe pushed, directly targets them.  Beginning July 1, Kansas will become one of a handful of states that mandate jail time for repeat offenders who refuse breath or blood tests after being stopped for suspicion of driving drunk.  The law was designed to correct a common scenario involving test refusals by motorists who knew their way around the legal system and thus refused the tests, leaving prosecutors little evidence for convictions.

Refusal rates in Johnson County have been climbing steadily and this year are running close to 30 percent, Howe said.  “These people pose a threat,” Howe said. “We need to hold them accountable.”  First-time offenders are exempted from the new law.  Currently in Kansas, and most other states, refusing the tests can result in a driver’s license being suspended.  But that fails to deter many chronic offenders who continue to drive with or without a license, Howe said.  The new law carries the same penalties as a DUI conviction — up to a year in jail for those with multiple convictions — and takes away the incentive to refuse the tests, Howe said.

But critics say it will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased court and incarceration costs. And they maintain it is rife with potential constitutional violations that likely will bring prolonged court challenges.  “There’s going to be a non-stop parade of litigation while this law is in effect,” said a veteran criminal defense lawyer in Kansas.  Yet one of the selling points that prosecutors used to get the law passed was that it would cut down on the number of DUI cases being taken to trial, he said.  The law will make criminals of people who only are suspected of driving under the influence and want to exercise their right against self-incrimination, Norton said. It also takes away their right to remain silent or to be free from warrantless searches.  “It doesn’t do anything to curb drunk driving or alcohol-related crashes,” Norton said. “It only makes it easier to convict people they suspect.”

However, those kinds of constitutional questions have been raised in other states, and the laws have been upheld as constitutional, according to Bill Lemons, traffic safety resource prosecutor for the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.  Minnesota implemented a refusal law in 1988 and expanded it to include first-time offenders in 1993, Lemons said.  It has resulted in a drastic reduction in the percentage of DUI stops that result in test refusals, he said.  Howe hopes the law will have the same effect here.

Even before this law, Kansas was one of the top states in the country in implementing laws to counter drunken driving, according to data compiled by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  Under MADD’s rating system, Kansas received five stars, its top mark. Only four other states rated that highly. Missouri, which considered but did not pass a similar refusal law in 2010, rated three stars from MADD.  “It (Kansas) is near the top as far as having the toughest penalties on the books,” said Frank Harris, MADD’s state legislative affairs manager.

Harris called the new Kansas law a “step in the right direction.”  “Refusal is a problem across the country,” he said. “It allows offenders to elude justice.”  Some other jurisdictions have conducted “no refusal” programs, often around holiday weekends, according to Harris. Coordinating with local prosecutors and judges, police confronted with a refusal seek a search warrant to obtain the breath or blood sample. The threat of the search warrant is often enough to convince the suspect to voluntarily submit to the testing, he said.  Howe said that kind of approach would be “unworkable” here. It would necessitate having judges on call around the clock and would “flood” hospitals with DUI suspects being brought in for blood draws, he said.  One question yet to be answered nationally is what effect laws like the one passed in Kansas have on DUI-related crash rates.  No studies have been done, said Robert Voas, senior research scientist for the Maryland-based Alcohol, Policy and Safety Research Center.  A study he co-authored in 2009 showed that people who refused testing were less likely to be convicted, and more likely to be recidivist drunken drivers.

Continuing to allow drunken drivers to evade prosecution by refusing tests is simply rewarding bad and dangerous behavior, Howe believes.

“We’re gambling with people’s lives,” he said.

NFL to push for more punishment for players who recieve DUI charges.

Three players have been arrested in the last nine days?  Maybe the NFL needs to hand down more punishment for players that are busted for DUI.  That is just what it seems they are trying to do.  It looks like the union and the owners have been talking about this for sometime but the owners don't want to make the necessary concessions to make it happen.

In, my opinion I don't think they need to focus on more stiff punishment for players accused of drunk driving.  But maybe if they are convicted of a drunk driving offense then more on field sanctions would be reasonable.  The simple fact of the matter is that when a regular person gets a DUI charge they may face negative ramifications at their place of employment.  The players should be held to that same standard.  To enforce some sort of punishment based on just a "charge" or a better term is aqcusation of drunk driving simply isn't fair.  After all, they should be presumed innocent.

Here is the article that inspired this post.


NFL has been pushing for increased DUI discipline
by Mike Florio

After a rash of recent DUI arrests, with three players popped in nine days for driving drunk, it’s obvious that whatever the NFL is doing to prevent players from possibly killing paying customers isn’t working. Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News agrees that more needs to be done.  “A guy over the legal limit for alcohol behind the wheel of a car, in fact, is as dangerous as a football player like Plaxico Burress going into a crowded club and having a couple of drinks with a loaded unlicensed handgun in his pants,” Lupica contends.

He’s right.  And, actually, a small piece of metal whizzing around a bar may be less dangerous than a 2,000-pound chunk of it flying down the street.  Per a source with knowledge of the NFL’s thinking, the league has wanted to increase the penalties for several years.  The league contends, we’re told, that the union has resisted.  In fairness to the NFLPA, however, the league could get higher DUI penalties if the league was willing to make the kind of concession necessary to get the union to agree.  If, for example, the NFL were willing to export the appeals process for violations of the substance-abuse policy to a neutral arbitrator, the players may be willing to allow that arbitrator to uphold or reject the stiffer proposed punishments for players who drive drunk.

Thus, while the NFLPA understandably is protecting the rights of men who technically are on their own time and who face consequences via the criminal justice system, both sides need to come together and look at the bigger picture.  Ultimately, this is an entertainment business.  And the men providing the entertainment shouldn’t randomly be endangering the lives of the folks they’re trying to entertain, either by driving drunk or by throwing swords into the stands.

What to do if you get a speeding ticket in Kansas.

So you got busted.  You were going over the posted limit and looked up to see some red and blue flashing lights.  Now what are you going to do?  You don't want the penalty on your license or the increase in your insurance premiums when your insurance company finds out.  But what options do you have? In Kansas, you usually have three different options.

1. Go to court and schedule your case for trial.  Then go back on your trial date and defend yourself.
    * This is the time when you can bring up mistakes in the ticket or argue that you were in fact not speeding
2. You can try to get a diversion
     * This can get your ticket dismissed altogether if you meet the diversion requirements.
3. Try to get the ticket amended to a lesser charge that does not go on your driving record.
     *This will keep your driving record clean and your ticket will not show up to the insurance company

 Here is a video that better explains the process.

Kansas Judge talks about harsh new DUI laws.

Well, our constitutional protections are beat down even more.  The Kansas Legislature is making it a crime to exercise your fifth amendment right.  It is a long held belief that you don't have to do anything that provides evidence to prosecute you in a criminal case, but that looks like it will be changing on July 1, 2012.  The legislature is making it illegal to refuse to blow in a breathalyzer.

This just doesn't make sense to me and I can't see how it will stand up to the fifth amendment when it gets to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is surely will.  I don't understand how anyone can use the legal argument like used in the article below?  Punishing people more harshly for a law that they don't even know exists does nothing to deter criminals.  That and to say that its ok to violate our constitutional protections because it makes the streets safer is moronic!  Why don't we just start going into people's houses and start searching for illegal things, I mean if it keeps the streets more safe it would be justified by this line of thought.  Or better yet we could just suspend the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment altogether.

Here is the article that inspired this post.

Judges hopeful new DUI laws will equal safer streets

By Craid Andres

Wichita, Kansas -- Two of the last five years Kansas had the second largest increase in alcohol-related fatalities in the nation. One Wichita judge says a new law may help change that statistic.  Beginning July first, if you refuse to take a breathalyser test on a suspected DUI traffic stop, it's a crime. A second traffic stop and refusal is a felony.  "I think the new law will certainly help," says Wichita judge Phil Journey.  For Journey, it's personal.

"Well I've been working on the issue and trying to improve the DUI laws in Kansas for almost a decade now," explains Journey. "Since I started in the Kansas Senate years ago. I started running bills when I was in the Kansas Senate and it was always a very difficult and emotional issue."  But Journey says making the second refusal to take a breathalyser test, a big move. A move he hopes will get the attention of those who chose to drink and drive.  "Well, I can't tell you how frustrated I get sometimes when I see an offender that has come before me two or three times in the past and that they just can't seem to make a little better choice in their life," says Journey. "But, I think that we will find eventually that these will be very positive changes in Kansas law that will help make us all a little bit safer."

Some attorneys in Kansas are left wondering if personal freedoms are being infringed upon with the new law.
"Any time anybody comes in and says we need tougher DUI laws that always sounds good initially," says Wichita Attorney Kurt Kerns. "Oh, sure, I'm all for tough law enforcement. But there reaches a point where you're sacrificing essential liberties and essential freedoms."

"It's been long held that nobody accused of a crime should be forced to do anything to... Provide evidence against themselves. Yet here we are passing laws that basically say that's the case. You have to offer evidence that could be used against you. And I think it violated the 5th amendment. I always have."

Judge Journey counters with keeping the streets safer. He also says, as a judge, he tries to use preventive measures to keep DUI offenders from offending again.  "I think it's really important as a judge that I have an array of options in front of me," says Journey. "You can't just jail them and expect them to get better. You need to have as many tools in the toolbox as possible and the statutes do give me more tools. For example, on repeat offenders they can be sent to the Department of Corrections for treatment prison rather than simply just be warehoused in the county jail. And then, after they come back from the treatment program, I can decide whether they stay in jail or get probation."

The new law begins July 1st.

In what city are you most likely to get a speeding ticket?

I ran across this article and thought is was pretty interesting.  It breaks down the cities in the United States you are most likely to get a traffic ticket in.  It compiles the data and ranks the cities by taking statistics from speeding ticket or traffic ticket searches on google.  I'm not sure how accurate or scientific that is but it makes sense to me.  The place where more people are looking for speeding ticket lawyers is probably the place giving out the most traffic tickets.  Looks like the list breaks down like this.

1. Atlanta
2. Los Angeles
3. Dallas-Fort Worth
4. Miami
5. New York
6. Chicago
7. Washington, D.C.
8. Houston
9. Orlando
10. San Diego

Looks like Kansas City is not on the list so that is good.  I wonder if they compiled the entire metro if the ranking would change?  Some of the smaller towns hand out quite a few traffic tickets.  Here is the article text.

Where are you most likely to get a speeding ticket?
By Jayne Clark, USA Today

Your odds of getting a traffic ticket are greatest in Nevada, if the analysis of a motorists' rights group is on the money.  The National Motorists Association has issued its second tally of states in which motorists are most likely to catch the spirit-deflating sight of flashing red lights in their rearview. Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Maryland round out the top five.  The least likely states to get pulled over and ticketed: the wide-open roads of Wyoming, followed by Montana.  New in this year's analysis (the NMA issued a similar tally in 2010) is a ranking of most ticket-happy metro areas. They are:

1. Atlanta
2. Los Angeles
3. Dallas-Fort Worth
4. Miami
5. New York
6. Chicago
7. Washington, D.C.
8. Houston
9. Orlando
10. San Diego

Both rankings are based on analysis of ticket-related Google search queries ("speeding ticket," "traffic ticket" and similar terms) in relation to specific geographic areas.Spokesman John Bowman acknowledges the methodology isn't exactly scientific, but then, most states don't routinely track such information.

"It's unwieldy because states include hundreds, if not thousands, of ticketing jurisdictions," he says.
Another factor: In many states, a portion of some traffic fines are turned over to the state. So in order to keep revenues in local coffers, authorities might reduce a moving violation infraction to a lesser charge, Bowman says. At any rate, there's no aggregate data available for a topic that's of great interest to many motorists.

Likewise, there's no hard data on the location and prevalence of speed traps, but the NMA nevertheless maintains the National Speed Trap Exchange website, which enables motorists to add spots to the list based on personal experience.  The takeaway for motorists over the coming Memorial Day weekend and beyond: Drive in a safe and prudent manner, but take extra care if you're passing through certain states and metro areas, Bowman says.  Is there a state or locale in which you ease off the pedal? Or wish you had?