New Law in Kansas allows for Free Booze at retail stores.

Well this caught me off guard.  The other day I was in Kansas City, MO at the Grandslam Gas Station and I walked in to see a sample stand like you would see at any Sam's Club or Costco.  I thought this was kind of strange being that it was in a gas station/ liquor store.  What peaked my interest even more was that they were giving out liquor.  Not cheese or candy or something like that but liquor.  It wasn't even beer or wine it was flavored vodka.  They were giving out half shots of vodka!  At a gas station?!  Turns out in Missouri this is 100% legal.  So I got to looking and it looks like the law changed in
Kansas to make it legal here also.

This just doesn't make any sense that Kansas would loosen up laws that allow you to get free booze at a retail outlet but then tighten the reins on driving under the influence laws.  Not only is it strange but it’s just counterintuitive,  you can go into a store, take a free shot of hard alcohol and try some wine then get back in your car and drive away.  Now if you get pulled over and you refuse to take a breath test the law allow for criminal punishment.  These laws seem to advocate drinking and driving then harshly punish those who do the natural consequence of what the law is now making legal.  I'm not saying you should drink and drive but this just doesn't make sense to give people free alcohol at a place they obviously drove a car to, then turn around and hammer them when they exercise their constitutional right to not incriminate themselves.

Here is the article that brought my attention to the Kansas law change.


New Kansas law allows wine, beer, and sprits tastings in retail stores
Br: Dennis Schaefer

New Kansas legislation, effective July 1, 2012, will allow wine, beer and spirits tastings in retail liquor stores. This has long been the case in Missouri but now Kansas has come into the 21st century and will be able to compete, on an equal footing, with Missouri liquor stores.  Time to get out and see what Kansas wine, beer and spirits stores are up to.

Lukas Liquor Superstore is wasting no time in announcing that their Kansas location will begin a tasting schedule for their customers starting this Sunday, July 1st. To celebrate the new law, on Sunday afternoon they will be tasting Pearl vodka and a delicious variety of Naked Grape wines from 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. Then on Tuesday, July 3rd, the fresh new flavors of New Amsterdam vodka will be on the tasting card, as well as premium wines from Edna Valley Winery, Red Rock and Martin Codax, from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m.

At the original Rimman Liquors in Lenexa, they will be pouring Radler, which is a shandy brew consisting of 50% premium beer and 50% grapefruit or lemon soda and is the perfect summer thirst-quencher. It's also low in calories and low in alcohol (2.83%). That's on Tuesday, July 3, from 1:00 - 8:00 p.m. Also on the same tasting menu: a wonderful wine blend called Eccelstone, primarily focused on Pinot Gris and Grenache Blanc but with another half dozen grapes in the blend. It's aromatic and flowery, a touch sweet, and wonderfully refreshing.


At Rimman Liquors in Prairie Village, on July 3, from 2:00 - 7:00 p.m., their preferred pour is from Lagunitas Brewing and it's their special seasonal, Undercover Shut-Down Ale, which, by the way, is very limited. Also on the tasting card: a genuine Dunkel Weizen from Summit Brewery of St. Paul, Mn. It's similar to wheat beer, but darker with flavors of toffee and chocolate and hints of banana and clove.

Buckley’s Wine Market will be offering a sparkling wine tasting from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. on July 1, though the specific bubblies weren't specified. Their new wine tastings will be regularly scheduled from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Thursdays and from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Gomer's of Lenexa announced that it will be getting into the swing of things too, with a store tasting on Sunday, July 1, from 12:00 - 4:30 p.m. featuring Edna Valley Chardonnay, Solicello Moscato, A to Z Rose', Bridgeport Summer Squeeze and the new and wildly popular Bud Light's Lime-a-Rita.

Free wine tastings on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro area this week at: Lukas Liquor Superstore, 7541 W. 119th St., Overland Park, Ks. 66213, 913-451-8030. Rimman Liquors of Lenexa, 15117 W. 87th St., Lenexa, Ks. 66219, 913-942-1604. Rimann Liquors of Prairie Village, 3917 Prairie Lane, Prairie Village Shopping Center, Prairie Village, Ks. 66208, 913-236-5311. Buckley's Wine Market, 8661 W. 135th St., Overland Park, Ks. 66223, 913-814-9463. Gomer's Lenexa, 12740 W. 87th St., Lenexa, Ks. 66215, 913-894-0600.

Shawnee Kansas man in hot water after posting mugshots of people arrested in Kansas.

Well as if there wasn't enough negative stigma around someone that has been arrested, someone has taken it to a new level.  A Kansas man has created a website that posts up the mugshots of people arrested in Johnson County.  Now this is kinda a jerk thing to do but this has already been done.  The Johnson County sheriff's office already does this with inmates, so that relatives and such can confirm who has been arrested and have some basic information about their charges.  But this guy took it a step further.  Way further.  He then promoted the website and charged people to take their picture and information off the site.

Imagine.  You get arrested for something as simple as failure to register your car. (Pretty common especially since the Kansas Department of revenue just went through a huge computer system problem that lasted for months) This jerk takes your photo and blasts it all over the internet.  Then you go and try to get a new job, or have a job interview.  The employer searches your name on google. Bam they come up on this moron's website. Not good.

So then after people start calling this jerk asking to have their name taken off the website, what does this jerk do?  He charges them nearly $200.00 to take it down.  This guy is a total bottom feeder.  Here is the article that inspired this post.

SHAWNEE, Kan. (AP) — A northeastern Kansas man whose website posted mug shots and addresses of people arrested in Johnson County — then asked for up to $200 to take them down — is defending the site in the wake of a massive backlash from critics who complained it took advantage of people who hadn't been convicted of anything.  Matthew Creed, 30, of Shawnee, said he developed the website, Blabbermouthkc.com, as a community service to help make people aware of potential lawbreakers in their area.  "That was the biggest thing, to make others aware of those that were living around them that were breaking the law and to try to get those breaking the law to think twice about their future actions," Creed said Friday.  Critics slammed the website, which launched in May, saying it was akin to extortion or blackmail. The Johnson County District Attorney's office said Friday it was continuing to investigate whether Creed had violated any state laws.

"This guy is just a bottom-feeding vulture," said Jay Norton, a lawyer in Johnson County who represented some people featured on the website. "The idea that he was trying to help the community is a total farce." Creed's website featured a map of the Kansas City metro area with dots showing the Kansas or Missouri hometowns of people arrested in Johnson County. Clicking on the dots brought up the mugshots and addresses of people arrested — whether they were formally charged, much less convicted, The Kansas City Star reported (http://bit.ly/KY3bOx ).  Some of the photos were of people arrested for such infractions as being a minor in possession of tobacco or driving with expired registration.

Creed said Friday that the current version of the site was an initial test version and that it hasn't yet been fully realized. The site was temporarily offline late Thursday but was back up Friday evening.  "It's going through a transition," Creed said. He said in the future, he would like the website to focus more on charges related to drugs, alcohol, sex abuse and child support nonpayment, and perhaps eliminate some of the lesser charges.
Numerous websites post news of arrests, and often include mug shots. Some offer people a way to get such postings removed for a fee. Creed struck a nerve by combining both features, including an elaborate scale of payments to remove photos and arrest information from the site — $199.99 for prompt removal, $149.99 for removal within a few days.

Creed said he is seeking to have the site established as a nonprofit and intends to give 40 percent of proceeds to other charities. As an alternative to charging for removal of postings, he suggested he could do it if a person performed 180 hours of community service.  Creed said he knew he was delving into gray areas of the law but thought his business model was legal.  Wayne Logan, law professor at Florida State University, said Friday that Creed doesn't have any legal authority "to impose community service on anybody" and that while websites like Creed's may be legal, they also raise ethical concerns because they're "trying to make money off other peoples' misfortunes."  "Of course these are arrests, not convictions very often, so there's an important distinction there," Logan said.  Citing "Wanted" posters, Logan said people have been publishing information about suspected criminals for decades, but noted that the online factor in naming and shaming is different.

"The Internet is both more pervasive and more permanent. The reputational ramifications are much more significant," Logan said. "There's a kind of perverse gratification people get from looking at other people being in difficult circumstances."

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.