Hays cops fired for filing a false report

I just heard that a few Hays cops were fired for driving drunk one night, wrecking a car, and not filing the report until the next day.

I know at least one of them and I'm glad this finally caught up to him. He had a problem of drinking and driving after the bars. Not sure who the other 2 were though.

Funny how the HDN never ran that story! That would've been a good one to read.

I know there was an article about two Great Bend, KS police officers ( one was supposed to be DUI ) sure it wasn't that? I hope your correct in what you say, the only crime the Hays police are able to solve is a DUI.

nope it wasn't that... these were from Hays. I know one of them personally. The person who told me this didn't tell me the other's names

Funny how there are sometimes two sets of rules, glad this caught up with them and someone had the balls to do something about it .

plowboy wrote:

Funny how there are sometimes two sets of rules, glad this caught up with them and someone had the balls to do something about it .

isn't filing a false report a criminal offense?? shouldn't there be charges filed??

We recently had a run in with the Hays Police Dept. Let's just say that they were not very "by the book" with their arrest tactics.

HDN didn't print anything about it probably because of their hands of Hays policy. This deal is stinky.

Maybe gibleis can fill us in?

Justoo wrote:

Maybe gibleis can fill us in?

That is what I was hoping... maybe it's to hush hush even for him to comment about it though!

I would hope charges were filed but I don't know if they were or not. I do believe that one is now a deputy up by p-burg.

One has a new job already? How long ago did this happen?

Like the new avatar, bg.

Well according to his myspace page it says he was with the HPD until oct. 2008 and started at p-burg dec. 2008

and thanks about the av. I hope to have one like that as a wall hanger one day! Show the husband who's boss

bg0308 wrote:

Well according to his myspace page it says he was with the HPD until oct. 2008 and started at p-burg dec. 2008

and thanks about the av. I hope to have one like that as a wall hanger one day! Show the husband who's boss

The one in front right is on my wall from 2 yrs ago soon as I find a good place for him

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

jessks75 wrote:

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Justoo wrote:

Like the new avatar, bg.

I don't want to see another deer for a long time. I hit one the other night in my parents van so right now deer are something I don't want to see.

I imagine there are a couple of deer that don't want to see a minivan, also.

Glad you are unhurt.

Justoo wrote:

I imagine there are a couple of deer that don't want to see a minivan, also.

Glad you are unhurt.

As am I, DX.

At the risk of Rog and Bighead jumping all over my ass, I'll try to help you out.

One Hays cop "resigned", alcohol probably factor

Two city employees got in an accident. One police - other secretary. Didn't think there was over $1000 in damage. After getting estimates it was, so a report was filed.

Question for ya bg0308. Where did you come up with filing a false report? No where in your posts is anything that hints that anyone filed a false report.

I take it that if the damage is below $1000 there is no need to file a report.
Theoretical question here... If your car is only valued at $800 and you total it in a non-injury accident without damage to others or alcohol involved then you don't need to file a report?

Justoo wrote:

I take it that if the damage is below $1000 there is no need to file a report.

You can still file one but if you have a fender bender and a $500 or $1000 dollar deductable you don't really gain anything by filing an accident report (cept an accident on your driving record)
The only time an accident report is required is if there is an injury, property damage or over $1000 damage to the vehicle.

Justoo wrote:

Theoretical question here... If your car is only valued at $800 and you total it in a non-injury accident without damage to others or alcohol involved then you don't need to file a report?

Good question. I think you would have to file one. Even though the car is only worth $800, the damage to it would be more than $1000 to fix and that is what they look at. Of course the insurance company wouldn't fix it. They would just total it out and cut you a check.

Always liked that accident reporting system they tell about during bad weather on TV.

Dispatch..... Police Department, how may we help you?
Caller.... I slid on the ice and broke my headlight.
Dispatch..... Is anyone injured?
Caller..... No, I just broke a headlight but they said on TV to call.
Dispatch..... If it's just a headlight and no injuries you can report it later.
Caller..... But see, like I was passing a fatty to the dude in the other seat and I accidently spilled my beer and it made me swerve into the ditch and.....
Dispatch..... What is your location sir?

gibleis wrote:

At the risk of Rog and Bighead jumping all over my ass, I'll try to help you out.

One Hays cop "resigned", alcohol probably factor

Two city employees got in an accident. One police - other secretary. Didn't think there was over $1000 in damage. After getting estimates it was, so a report was filed.

Question for ya bg0308. Where did you come up with filing a false report? No where in your posts is anything that hints that anyone filed a false report.

Well the one that told me is friends with the one that was driving. What i was told was that they waited to report the wreck because the person that was driving was drunk and they didn't want to get a dui. This is all what the friend had told me as per say from the "driver"

I appreciate being semi singled out, makes me feel special. A friend of mine hit a cow. totaled van. Van was being sold for 400$ to a friend of his. Judge dismissed the failure to file even tho the monetary damage amount was greater than a grand, since it was provable that the actual "value" was much less.

Who paid for the cow?

farmer had to eat it i guess.

Your friend should have paid the man for his cow.

based on what rationale?

He hit it.

actually. cow walk into moving vehicle. should have not been on road. farmer have no liability for not controlling his pets?

I take it the cow was not injured then?

I believe most of Kansas is open range. excepting for Sedwick Co. and another county (Johnson?).

Kansas Attorney General
Opinion No. 2001-54
2001 WL 1660022
December 18, 2001
Summary of Opinion
The Kansas Attorney General was asked whether the prohibition in a statute on permitting livestock to run at large imposed a criminal or a civil punishment for its violation. Looking at the history of fence laws in Kansas, the Attorney General responded that the statute imposes civil, but not criminal, liability.

Text of Opinion
Re: Livestock and Domestic Animals--Stock Running at Large--Unlawful for Certain Animals to Run at Large; Whether Criminal or Civil Statute

Synopsis: K.S.A. 47-122 makes it unlawful for any domestic animal, other than dogs and cats, to run at large. While the word "unlawful" is used within this statute, based on legislative history and principles of criminal law, K.S.A. 47-122 is a civil liability statute and not a criminal prohibition statute. Cited herein: K.S.A. 21-3102; K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 21-3105; K.S.A. 47-122; K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 47-123; L. 1929, Ch. 211, §§ 1, 2.

Jan Satterfield
Butler County Attorney
214 W. Central
El Dorado, Kansas 67042

Dear Ms. Satterfield:

As Butler County Attorney you ask our opinion regarding whether K.S.A. 47- 122 is a criminal or a civil statute. That statute provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any domestic animal, other than dogs and cats, to run at large."

While the word "unlawful" is used within this statute, based on legislative history and principles of criminal law, in our opinion K.S.A. 47-122 is a civil liability statute.

Legislative History

The history and progression of Kansas fence and herd laws was presented in a law journal article from which we quote:

"Kansas has had a long and varied history in the area of fence laws. The earliest statement of the law in Kansas regarding fences was the common law:

"'At common law, owners and keepers of livestock were under the duty to restrain their animals from trespassing on real property. Persons were held strictly liable for the acts of their trespassing livestock.'

"Under the common law, if livestock got out and damaged another person's property, the stock owner was liable for the damages regardless of his attempts to restrain the livestock or the condition of his fences. Strict liability was the rule. An owner had to keep his livestock off the land of another or suffer the consequences.

"In 1855, the first edition of the Statutes of Kansas Territory contained 'an act regulating enclosures.' This law made no reference to the common law, but merely stated that all fields and enclosures must be fenced and specified how a lawful fence had to be constructed. This law, referred to as the Kansas Fence Law, adopted what has been called a fence-out-policy, because it required the landowner to construct a lawful fence around his property before he could collect damages from the owner of wayward livestock. Thus, the landowner had to fence out all other livestock. If the landowner did not have a legal fence around his land, he could not recover for damages caused by another's livestock.

"The fence-out policy made sense in 1855; Kansas was an open range state and economics dictated that it would be far more practical and less expensive to fence in small fields of growing crops than to attempt to fence in large herds on the wide open prairie.

"Under the old Kansas fence law, if livestock did trespass within a lawful enclosure, the stock owner was strictly liable for the damages caused by his livestock. The simple fact that the livestock had trespassed within a lawful enclosure was enough to impose liability on the cattleman. This portion of the Kansas fence law survives even today.

"Kansas wasn't to stay an open range state forever. In 1929 the Kansas Legislature passed a statute providing:

"'That it should be unlawful for any neat cattle, horses, mules, asses, swine or sheep, to run at large.'

"(Neat cattle does not refer to cattle that dress nicely, but rather to domesticated straight-backed animals of the bovine genus.)

"This law was passed in 1929 and its accompanying statutes were collectively referred to as the Kansas Herd Law. The legislature at that time further enacted sanctions against any owner allowing his animals to run at large. They stated that any livestock owner allowing his animals to run at large 'shall be liable to the person injured for all damages resulting therefrom, and the person so damaged shall have a lien on said livestock for the amount of such damages.'

"Thus, in 1929, the Kansas fence law battle swung in favor of the farmer and against the rancher. No longer could a stock owner allow his animals to roam at large with impunity. Until 1986 the common law, Fence Laws and the Herd Laws were all still active statutes that affected the area of fences and trespassing livestock. This created a situation in which it was difficult to predict with any degree of certainty when a livestock owner would be held responsible for damages caused by his livestock. However, the 1986 session of the Kansas Legislature rectified this problem of overlapping and inconsistent fence laws.

In Senate Bill #403, the legislature clearly established the Kansas Herd Laws as the law of the land. This means that domestic animals cannot run at large in the state and that they have to been closed by a lawful fence. The legislature also made clear that the livestock owner has to be negligent before he can be held responsible for the damages caused by his trespassing animals." [FN1]

[FN1]. 56 K.J.B.A. No. 3, 15 (1987), Brownback, Kansas Fence Laws and Trespassing Livestock, citations omitted).

As this law journal article and numerous cases which reached the Kansas appellate courts make clear, the Kansas herd law has always been considered a civil liability statute and not a criminal prohibition statute. Since 1929, when the first version of K.S.A. 47-122 was enacted, it has been accompanied by a damages provision:

"Any owner whose livestock shall run at large, in violation of K.S.A. 47- 122, shall be liable to the person injured for all damages resulting therefrom, and the person so damaged shall have a lien on said livestock for the amount of such damages."

Thus, based on the legislative history, in our opinion K.S.A. 47-122 is a civil liability statute.

Principles of Criminal Law

The fundamental principles regarding whether an act is considered a crime under Kansas law are expressed in two provisions of the Kansas Criminal Code:

"No conduct constitutes a crime against the state of Kansas unless it is made criminal in this code or in another statute of this state...."

"A crime is an act or omission defined by law and for which, upon conviction, a sentence of death, imprisonment or fine, or both imprisonment and fine is authorized;..."

As seen, while K.S.A. 47-122 makes it "unlawful" for certain animals to run at large, neither a sentence of death, imprisonment or fine is authorized for violation of the defined conduct. Thus, under principles of criminal law, in our opinion K.S.A. 47-122 is not a criminal prohibition statute.

In conclusion, while the word "unlawful" is used within K.S.A. 47-122, based on legislative history and principles of criminal law, in our opinion this statue is a civil liability statute and not a criminal prohibition statute.

Very truly yours,

Carla J. Stovall
Attorney General of Kansas

Camille Nohe
Assistant Attorney General


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Top of This Page
Return to Horse/Car Collisions Page


http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/car/ksag_2001-54.htm

Can you boil that down to 5 lines for me?

farmer responsible for actions of animals at large.

lol, good job,k thx.

If the cow is on a state or county road the person who hit it is not responsible because the cow shouldn't be there. The owner of said cow is not criminally liable, but is liable for damages under civil law because he did not properly restrain the cow.

And no, Most of Kansas is not open range, and even on open range a livestock owner is required to keep his animals from leaving open range and moving onto public, or other private properties.

In Senate Bill #403, the legislature clearly established the Kansas Herd Laws as the law of the land. This means that domestic animals cannot run at large in the state and that they have to been closed by a lawful fence. The legislature also made clear that the livestock owner has to be negligent before he can be held responsible for the damages caused by his trespassing animals." [FN1]

[FN1]. 56 K.J.B.A. No. 3, 15 (1987), Brownback, Kansas Fence Laws and Trespassing Livestock, citations omitted).

This part here seems to be most pertinent. In order to prove a farmers negligence you would need proof of repeat escapes. The trespassing poses another challenge to the motorist. Since the road is public and not private the cow was not trespassing any more than the motorist was.

You are right that an accident involving a cow, or other animal on a public access road is not a criminal offense, but animals are not supposed to run unattended and that includes public roads. A farmer may run his cattle across, or down a public roadway, but he may be liable in that case if there's an accident.

bg0308 wrote:

Well the one that told me is friends with the one that was driving. What i was told was that they waited to report the wreck because the person that was driving was drunk and they didn't want to get a dui. This is all what the friend had told me as per say from the "driver"

That could very well be true. The waited cause they didn't think it was over 1000 is just what was said.

What a crock!!!!! Just watch, nothing will happen...all the law is about is who you are and how much money is in your pockets! This would be a case of who you are. Now if the driver would have been black, or mexican, or poor....look out!

Thanks everyone for letting me vent. haha

Wow,....was it that NEW mustang????

cobra_kel wrote:

What a crock!!!!! Just watch, nothing will happen

What do you think should happen?

gibleis wrote:

cobra_kel wrote:

What a crock!!!!! Just watch, nothing will happen

What do you think should happen?

That your fellow jack booted thugs will walk away with nothing but a slap on the wrist

slickjay12 wrote:

gibleis wrote:

cobra_kel wrote:

What a crock!!!!! Just watch, nothing will happen

What do you think should happen?

That your fellow jack booted thugs will walk away with nothing but a slap on the wrist

You think he should get nothing but a slap on the wrist, or do you have something to add?

I wondered what jackbooted meant so I looked it up.

"Jack boot is the name of a special type of boot used in combat. It reaches upto and extends above the knee. It originates in the 19th century. It reaches upto the mid-calf and has no laces. It is made of a leather sole with hobnails and heel irons."

They sound uncomfortable.

gibleis wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

gibleis wrote:

cobra_kel wrote:

What a crock!!!!! Just watch, nothing will happen

What do you think should happen?

That your fellow jack booted thugs will walk away with nothing but a slap on the wrist

You think he should get nothing but a slap on the wrist, or do you have something to add?

Ok jackass cop I forgot that I am afraid that your fellow jack booted thugs will walk away with nothing but a slap on the wrist

K, now a slap on the wrist for what?

I guess I'll clarify my question.

Lets say you are drunk one night and get in a wreck. The wreck is reported the next day and the other driver says that you were drunk when it happened. What am I to do about the drinking?
There isn't anything I can do. There would be no way to prove that you were drunk even with an eyewitness saying you were. Just cause they say you were drunk doesn't mean you were over the legal limit at the time of the accident.

I am open for suggestions if you can think of something.

Kinda like todays aggravated battery call. If you can't prove it, don't try and charge it out.

Got to completely different stories from the two involved. Both had injuries that could have occurred in both persons versions. Both claimed complete innocence in the matter.

I am pretty sure I know what happened but couldn't go into court and say with total confidence.

gibleis is right slickjay. Once a person has sobered up it's rather hard to prove in court how much he had at the time of the accident. Once many years ago I had car trouble on a very inhospitable cold night and called local PD for a ride. He said I smelled like beer, but he had no way of knowing if I drank it before the car trouble, or while I was parked trying to fix the car, or while I was walking for help, or while calling him from the residence I walked to.

Actually it was all of the above, but because I was drinking after driving there was no way to know if I was over the limit while driving so he just took me home and I said thanks.