The Overland Park Justice Center is located at 124th and Foster, across the street from St. Lukes South. The Municipal Court has a very user friendly website that provides resources for making online payments, searching public court records, a Guide to Court Process, and lots of other information.
The public can access the court record search by following the link above, clicking on the log in button and choosing the search by party option from the top menu bar. This service can show you your tickets, old and current, your court dates and other useful information.
Contacting the Court:
W. Jack Sanders Justice Center
12400 Foster (map)
Overland Park, KS 66213
The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a white-collar crime case over a jury's 2011 conviction of Florida fisherman John Yates. The government charged Mr. Yates under the "anti-shredding" provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law. The provision penalizes the destruction or concealment of "a tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence" a government investigation. Most of us are familiar with this law as being intended to prevent fraud of the sort committed by companies such as Enron Corp and WorldCom Inc.
What damning evidence did Mr. Yates attempt to destroy or conceal, you ask? Fish. Yes, that’s right, fish. According to prosecutors in Florida, Mr. Yates threw undersized fish overboard after federal and state officials measured the fish on his boat.
At his trial, a crewmember testified that Yates had told crew members to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them with others. Based on the undisputed evidence that Yates tossed the fish overboard, he was convicted under the “anti-shredding” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley law. Yates appealed, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding in part that a fish fit within the definition of a "tangible object." Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. Who said white-collar-crimes aren’t fun? The case is United States v. Yates, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-7451.
Consideration by the Supreme Court
On April 28, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, involving the challenges to the search of an arrestee’s cellphone without a warrant. In both cases, the government argued whenever police make an arrest, police should be able to search cellphones for all of the same reasons that police can search an arrestee’s wallet without a warrant. The problem, however, a person does not carry the most intimate details of his life in a wallet. This was recognized by several of the Justices. That being said, it is unlikely the Court will hold that officers must get a warrant whenever they want to search an arrestee’s phone. Unlikely that the Court will establish a bright-line rule, we may be looking forward to another decision with a test of factors to consider.
New Kansas Legislation enhances sentence on subsequent fleeing and eluding convictions.
The law says you better not run. Sub. For HB 2422 establishes a special sentencing rule for a third or subsequent violation of fleeing or eluding police. The sentence is now presumptive imprisonment and shall be consecutive to any prison sentence. In determining whether the conviction is a first, second, third or subsequent conviction for sentencing purposes, it is irrelevant whether the offense occurred before or after conviction of a previous offense.
Senate Sub. for HB 2655 allows veteran wit PTSD to seek mental health convictions upon certain convictions, and amends the crimes of interference with law enforcement and giving a false alarm.