STATE OF KANSAS         )
                        )
    vs.                 )
                        )Case No.  95 CR 1809
CARLOS A. HERNANDEZ,    )
                        )
Defendant.              )
________________________)

The above captioned case comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss claiming that the chain of custody of the only evidence in this matter has not been established due to outrageous government conduct. It should be noted that this Court was extremely cautious when initially assigned to hear this matter. Due to the potential ramifications of such allegations, counsel was warned at the outset that if relevant testimony was not offered, this Court would terminate the proceeding. After testimony from the defendant's first three witnesses, the Court determined there was merit in allowing the hearing to continue. However, as an additional safeguard, counsel was required to proffer to the Court expected testimony of each witness to ensure testimony was relevant to the defendant's claims. Also, the Court limited discovery and testimonial evidence to the specific three year time period beginning January 1994 through December 1996.

In addition to the evidence and written Memoranda supporting the defendant's claims and the State's response, the Court has received two Amicus Curiae briefs - one from the Shawnee County Sheriff and one from the Shawnee County Public Defenders Office. Also, the Court has received a motion from witness Tim Oblander renewing his objection to production and release of his treatment records and accompanying testimony which was followed by the Defendant's and State's written responses to the renewed motion.

Because of the broad and far reaching impact of this ruling, the Court will first outline the procedural status of this matter followed by a synopsis of the testimony from this hearing from which the Court will make its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

1. On January 10, 1995, Corporal Mike Rafferty, of the Civil Process Unit of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office, served civil process papers (Writ of assistance) on Defendant Carlos Hernandez at his residence at 837 S. Tyler, Apt. # 14, Topeka, Kansas, and while doing so saw what he thought were controlled substances in Defendant's residence. (PH, p. 4).

3. After obtaining the search warrant, Detective Holladay obtained the assistance of Deputy Tim Oblander, also a member of the Sheriff's Office Drug Enforcement Unit, and the search warrant was executed on Defendant's residence on January 10, 1995. (PH, pp. 4, 12).

4. Detective Holladay described the items he observed in Defendant Hernandez' apartment as: cigarette rolling papers; scales; several small ends of burnt marijuana cigarettes which he called "roaches"; three baggies of marijuana labeled Items 10, 11 and 12 respectively (Items 10 and 11 and the scales were located atop some cabinets in the kitchen); and documents identifying Carlos Hernandez as a resident at the location. (PH, pp. 5, 6). Defendant Carlos Hernandez was arrested and charged with misdemeanor marijuana drug possession and felonious failure to pay drug tax.

5. The marijuana evidence was seized by Detective Holladay. Deputy Oblander assisted Detective Holladay in the gathering of the marijuana and locating some of the items, although Detective Holladay could not recall exactly what he had Deputy Oblander do. (PH, pp. 5-6, 12, 15). Detective Holladay reaffirmed that he did not remember what exactly he had Deputy Oblander do in assisting him. (Feb. 18, 1999, Tr. p. 43).

6. After seizing the marijuana, Detective Holladay put the drugs in a locker in his office which was locked until he processed it. He then processed the marijuana by marking it with his initials and packaging it and then put the marijuana in a locked cabinet in the central part of the Sheriff's Office to await retrieval by crime scene personnel for testing. He placed the marijuana seized from defendants' residence in the central locker on January 13, 1995. (PH, 15-18).

7. The Crime Scene Unit officer who tested the marijuana seized from defendants' apartment was J.D. Sparkman. Sparkman found tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) present in the vegetation in all three baggies. (PH, p. 7; February 18th Transcript pp. 144-145).

8. January 20, 1999, a preliminary hearing was held and the defendant was bound over on failure to pay drug tax, a level 10 felony and also certified for trial was a possession of marijuana charge. At the preliminary hearing, evidence was produced that indicated the seized evidence weighed at least ½ ounce less than it did when it was weighed in January 1995.

9. On February 4, 1999, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the allegation that the chain of custody is unestablished due to outrageous governmental conduct.

11. On February 18, 1999, a hearing was held to enter testimony on the record from various current and former law enforcement personnel regarding conditions in the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and the conduct of its employees during the time period of defendants' arrest and testing of the substances seized. This testimony was elicited by defendant to demonstrate the alleged outrageous governmental conduct which defendant claims would preclude him from being afforded a fair trial. The hearing was continued until February 22, 1999.

12.On February 22, 1999, the hearing resumed with further testimony from various current and former law enforcement personnel and was continued to the following day. At the end of the hearing on February 22nd, Defendant waived his presence at the follow up hearings knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and only for this portion of the proceedings. (February 22, 1999, Tr. pp. 263-264). The hearing resumed once again on February 23, 1999, with further testimony being elicited from law enforcement personnel.

13. At the close of evidence on February 22, 1999, the State requested release of witness Timothy Oblander's treatment records from Valley Hope Treatment Center in Atchison, Kansas. On February 23, 1999, counsel for witness Oblander was present and over Oblander's objection, the Court ordered the treatment records from Valley Hope and subjected them to an "in camera" inspection.

14. On March 1, 1999, the Court issued a twenty-page Memorandum Decision and Order disclosing relevant portions of witness Timothy Oblander's treatment records. Contrary to prior testimony, these records indicated that Mr. Oblander suffered from Crack Cocaine addiction and that he "steals out of what they take as police" to support his habit. (See Memorandum Decision and Order, March 1, 1999)

15. Between the dates of February 26, 1999 and March 4, 1999, the Shawnee County District Attorney's office issued subpoenas to various law enforcement personnel, some of whom had already testified in the previous hearings. These subpoenas commanded their appearance at the hearing scheduled on March 9, 1999, to testify after having reviewed records. Some individuals were commanded to bring certain records with them.

17. Mr. Rumsey's motion also indicated that he was counsel for Detective Daniel Jaramillo and Deputy Phil Blume. However, Det. Jaramillo and Deputy Blume are represented by Irigonegaray and Associates, and have been so represented for at least several months.

18. On March 5, 1999, the State filed its response to the Motion to Quash filed by the Sheriff. The State contends in its response that Mr. Rumsey's Motion to Quash is defective for several reasons: (1) the Sheriff's office is not an entity which has capacity or authority or standing to quash a subpoena, (2) the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure provides no mechanism for the joinder of parties or for intervention, (3) none of the witnesses listed as clients of Mr. Rumsey are parties and thus, they have no standing which would enable them to control the proceedings, (4) a subpoena imposing an "undue burden" is a valid ground for quashing a subpoena since it is one of the four grounds provided by K.S.A. 60-245, (5) in any event, the subpoenas did not require the witnesses to produce a large quantity of documents, but merely asked the witnesses to review documents, with the exception of a few subpoenas which required the production of relatively few documents, and thus, the subpoenas could not be considered as imposing an undue burden on the witnesses, (6) relevancy is not a ground to quash a subpoena and only parties, not witnesses, may object to the relevance of testimony or other evidence, and finally, (7) the Motion indicates that Mr. Rumsey represents the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Dave Meneley, and eight current, and two former employees of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, of which two of the current employees have retained independent representation, which raises the question of whom Mr. Rumsey actually represents.

19. On March 5, 1999, the Court held a hearing at which the State, counsel for the Defendant, counsel for Det. Jaramillo and Deputy Blume, and Mr. Rumsey were allowed to respond to the Motion to Quash. At this hearing, the District Attorney withdrew the request in the subpoenas that the individuals review the records prior to the hearing, but did not withdraw the command that these individuals appear at the March 9, 1999 hearing and testify. It was clarified that Det. Jaramillo and Deputy Blume are represented by Irigonegaray and Associates (Robert Eye appearing) and not by Mr. Rumsey.

20. On March 8, 1999, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order on the Sheriff's Motion to Quash, Motion for Continuance, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Sanctions. The Court found that the ground of "undue burden" claimed by Shawnee County Sheriff's Department for quashing a subpoena is specifically reserved to persons, thereby excluding the Department. The Court further ruled that the curative measures taken by the District Attorney in withdrawing several of the requests for witnesses to review documents prior to their testimony reduced the burden, assuming it ever existed, to an acceptable level. The Court denied the Sheriff's Motion for a Protective Order as well as his Motion for Sanctions. Finally, the Court directed that: "[b]efore Mr. Rumsey appears before this Court again in this matter, he shall provide the Court with some form of confirmation that the clients he purports to represent have consented to such representation, and clarify the nature of the representation." March 8, 1999, Memorandum Decision and Order, p. 12. As of the date of this Order, the Court is not aware of Mr. Rumsey's compliance with this directive.

21. After completion of evidence, on March 31, 1999, the Defendant filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, on April 6, 1999, the State filed its response to the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, on April 14, 1999, the Court received Tim Oblander's Renewed Objections to Production and Release of Treatment Records and on April 16, 1999, the Court received the State's and Defendant's response to Mr. Oblander's renewed objections.

This synopsis is provided for the purpose of including the wide range of testimony pertaining to Defendant's claims. Credibility and the truthfulness of the witnesses testimony (or lack thereof) is reflected in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law beginning on page 56 of this Order.

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Agent Richard Vick

1. Agent Vick was assigned to investigate missing narcotics from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department in 1996. (Tr. pp. 8-9, Volume I).

2. Agent Vick testified that there were missing packets of cocaine (approximately 4) in a federal case (hereinafter referred to as the Caldwell case) which spawned his investigation. (Tr. pp. 27-28, 30, Volume I).

3. The investigation consisted of looking at the property receipts for evidence that had been checked in and comparing with expenditures from the two funds, the Sheriff's Buy Fund and the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) fund. The BJA fund is grant money from the government to be used by law enforcement for the purchasing of narcotics. In the case where receipts indicated narcotics were purchased, Agent Vick wanted to ensure that there was corresponding evidence receipts of where narcotics were actually checked into the evidence room. Agent Vick also went out and looked at the receipts that had been checked in to try to match the receipts with the expenditures. The investigation did not consist of physically locating the evidence itself or checking the integrity of the evidence to see if it had been altered or tampered with. (Tr. pp. 10-13, Volume I).

4. As part of his investigation, Agent Vick submitted a report which mentioned subpoenas issued to Deputy Oblander and Deputy Good. Agent Vick was having some difficulty matching up some evidence with corresponding receipts. Agent Vick testified that to the best of his knowledge, Deputy Oblander and Deputy Good never complied with those subpoenas, which requested the production of receipts. (Tr. p. 20, 22-23, Volume I).

Shawnee County Sheriff's Detective Scott J. Holladay

1. In January of 1995, Detective Holladay was assigned to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, which is also referred to as Special Services. (Tr. p. 39, Volume I).

2. Also assigned to Special Services around the time period of January, 1995 were Detective Jaramillo, Deputy Blume, Deputy Oblander, and Deputy Good. (Tr. p. 42, Volume I).

3. If another officer was assisting Detective Holladay in searching for items, Detective Holladay's general practice would be to have the assisting officer(s) point out the items to be seized and Detective Holladay would actually document it, photograph it, or whatever was necessary, and then preliminarily package the evidence at the scene and make notes (where it was found, what it was, etc.). (Tr. p. 44, Volume I).

4. Detective Holladay seized the evidence in this case (marijuana) on January 10, 1995, but was not logged in to the property room until January 13, 1995. Detective Holladay's practice would have been to bring the evidence back to the office, lock it in his file cabinet, process the evidence (weigh it, mark it, and package it) when he had the time to tend to it, and then book it into the property room. (Tr. pp. 46-50, Volume I).

5. Detective Holladay used a single pan, Sartorius electronic scale to weigh the marijuana in the first instance. Upon coming to Court for the Preliminary Hearing, Detective Holladay brought a Fisher scale to weigh the evidence in response to a defense request. (Tr. p. 51, Volume I).

6. Detective Holladay's customary practice was to weigh the substance initially to obtain a net weight, then take a minute portion of the substance for testing purposes. (Tr. p. 52, Volume I).

7. At the January 20, 1999 preliminary hearing, Detective Holladay testified that Items Nos. 10, 11, and 12 on the Evidence Custody Receipt had different weights at the preliminary hearing than they did initially. Item No. 10 initially weighed 21.70 grams, and at the preliminary hearing weighed 18.84 grams. Item No. 11 initially weighed 73.53 grams, and at the preliminary hearing weighed 66.94 grams. Item No. 12 initially weighed 25.27 grams, and at the preliminary hearing weighed 21.82 grams. (Tr. p. 53-54, Volume I).

8. Detective Holladay testified at the preliminary hearing that one of the plastic baggies holding the evidence had a hole in it, but that the outer ziplock-type bag was intact. (Tr. p. 54-55, Volume I).

9. Detective Holladay was directed by Major Ken Pierce, and also by Undersheriff Huffmier, to weigh the evidence in this case again on February 9, 1999. Detective Holladay weighed the evidence again on both the Fisher and the Sartorious scales. Detective Holladay also noted that when he was in the Drug Unit he made it a point to have the scales that he used certified by the City of Topeka Weights and Measures Division on a six-month interval, but at the very least, yearly. Upon being directed to weigh the evidence again on February 9, 1999, Detective Holladay brought it to Undersheriff Huffmier's attention that the Fisher scale had not been certified since November 17, 1992, and the Sartorious scale had not been certified since February 21, 1995. Undersheriff Huffmier directed Detective Holladay to go ahead and re-weigh the evidence. (Tr. pp. 59-61, Volume I).

10. At the February 18, 1999 hearing, Detective Holladay was directed by Defense Counsel to weigh out approximately 120 grams of tea leaves to provide a visual approximation for the Court of how much marijuana there was originally in this case. (Tr. p. 63, Volume I).

11. At the February 18, 1999 hearing, Detective Holladay was directed by Defense Counsel to weigh out approximately ½ ounce, or 14 grams, of tea leaves to provide a visual approximation for the Court of how much marijuana was missing in this case. (Tr. p. 64, Volume I).

12. During the investigation into missing evidence, Detective Holladay was asked to take a polygraph examination. Detective Holladay took the polygraph examination which indicated his responses were truthful. (Tr. p. 70, Volume I).

13. Detective Holladay testified that he spoke with the KBI about a conversation he had with Frank Good regarding Timothy Oblander. Detective Holladay testified that Frank Good came to him and told him that Tim Oblander was in drug treatment at Valley Hope in Atchison, Kansas. Detective Holladay testified that Frank Good had told him that Tim Oblander had told Frank Good that he had used drugs which he had in his custody for the purpose of training a drug K-9 that was assigned to Tim Oblander, and that Oblander had told Good that Oblander had used some of the drugs that Oblander had purchased during undercover investigations. Detective Holladay testified that he asked Good what kinds of drugs Oblander had used, and Good said that Oblander had related he had used both cocaine and methamphetamine. Detective Holladay further testified that he asked Good if any of the drugs Oblander had been using came from cases which had been forwarded for prosecution and Good informed Holladay that Good had been to court with some evidence which Good had found to have been opened, and that Good did not know if Oblander had opened them, but that Good assumed Oblander did. Detective Holladay testified that he asked whether Sheriff Meneley knew about all this, and that Good indicated that the Sheriff knew. Detective Holladay testified that Good told him that shortly after Oblander's "disappearance", Oblander's wife came to Sheriff Meneley and informed the Sheriff of her husband's drug use. (Tr. pp. 70-73, Volume I).

14. Detective Holladay testified that the "disappearance" he was referring to was an occasion on May 12, 1995, when Holladay came to work, he was informed that Tim Oblander had been missing for a period of time and a search was begun for several hours just within their group. Detective Holladay further testified that Tim Oblander was eventually found later that day. (Tr. p. 73, Volume I).

15. Detective Holladay testified that he has some concerns regarding the integrity of the evidence in this case based on events that have occurred over the last several years that would lead him to question any drug evidence that had been stored in the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department's property room during this period of time. (Tr. pp. 78-9, Volume I).

16. Detective Holladay testified that a portion of the KBI report that contained Sheriff's Buy Fund and BJA Fund accounts referencing two particular buys on January 10, 1995, one for $40 and one for $200, with the Defendant's case number beside them is without explanation since no purchases were made in this case; the evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant. (Tr. pp. 81-84, Volume I).

17. Detective Holladay testified that his typical procedure for seizing evidence was he would have: initially packaged the evidence into separate ziplock-type bags and made some note of it on paper in some form or fashion; transported the items back to his office, later processed the evidence (weighed, field tested, and placed evidence tape over the bag); then turned the evidence over to the property room in one form or another. A system was in place whereby the officers could place the evidence into a four-drawer file cabinet, each drawer having a separate lock that is unlocked, then snap the lock shut and the property room officers would come by, unlock the drawer and take the evidence to the property room. The property room officers, and not the drug unit officers, had keys to the locks on the file cabinets. (Tr. pp. 85-88, Volume I).

18. Detective Holladay testified that he would have used approximately one-tenth of a gram or less of marijuana to field test it. (Tr. p. 89, Volume I).

19. Detective Holladay communicated his hypotheses as to why the evidence in this case could have come up light in weight. These hypotheses were: (1) one-tenth of a gram or less for field testing purposes, (2) different scales were used, and (3) the scales used in the courtroom were uncertified, and (4) the marijuana may have dried out. However, Detective Holladay expressed that the differences that would occur based on the differing scales would be fairly minute, meaning less than one gram and that he had no specific knowledge as to what size of a difference in weight could be due to drying. (Tr. Pp. 90-93, Volume I).

20. Detective Holladay testified that the evidence (cocaine) in the Caldwell case and the evidence (marijuana) in this case were kept in the same locker. Detective Holladay further testified that people who would have had access to that locker would have been Detective Mauck, Holladay, Jaramillo, Bloom, Oblander, Good, Baker, the unit supervisor, and the Sheriff. (Tr. pp. 99-100, Volume I).

21. Detective Holladay testified that when he seized the marijuana at issue in this case, it was dry or semi-dry; it was not green growing vegetation, it had been dried somewhat. The marijuana had been picked from the stalks, it had been compressed in some form or another, and was a greenish brownish vegetation. (Tr. pp. 104-105, Volume I).

22. Detective Holladay testified that two particular buys (one for $40 and one for $200) had this case's case number assigned to them, when in fact, all of the evidence in this case was seized by a search warrant. On both buys, Detective Holladay's signature was placed by him on those sheets and he mistakenly wrote the Hernandez case number rather than the proper case number which is 95-00385. (Tr. pp. 17-18, Volume III).

23. Detective Holladay testified that the normal procedure for filling out a receipt was to fill out an expense report which would indicate how much was expended, what it was used for and what fund the money came from, date, case number, suspect information, and placing of those items which should have been noted on that receipt. This was normally done on the same day that the officer used the monies. (Tr. pp. 18-19, Volume III). Although Detective Holladay does not remember this instance specifically, it was his practice to fill this receipt out immediately after he had completed an expenditure. (Tr. p. 19, Volume III).

24. Detective Holladay testified that when Major Pierce reconciled the funds with the officers, it was not a department practice to actually match up an expenditure, an evidence sheet and a case file to see if they all matched. (Tr. p. 27, Volume III).

25. In response to Frank Good's and Sheriff Meneley's testimony that he was notorious for mishandling evidence, Detective Holladay testified that he never had any formal or informal reprimands for mishandling evidence, he never left evidence laying around for a period of days, and he did not practice the habit of putting evidence into files and never taking them to the property room. (Tr. pp. 28-29, Volume III).

Carl Anderson

1. Mr. Anderson is, and has been, employed by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) for 17 years as a chemist. His current title is "Quality Assurance Manager" which means he is the individual responsible for ensuring that proficiency testing is conducted by the various examiners and disciplines within the crime laboratory. During Mr. Anderson's entire tenure with the KBI, he has been conducting marijuana analyses. (Tr. pp. 113-115, Volume I).

2. Mr. Anderson was asked whether it was fair to say that he was an oversight for the forensic chemists within the KBI. He responded: "I don't think that would be entirely accurate. As the quality assurance manager, I have-I'm responsible for dealing with issues of quality within the laboratory system. That does not necessarily mean that I'm the expert in that field, I'm simply responsible for making sure that the quality system of the laboratory is effective, that it is followed and that any issues or problems that arise are dealt with in an appropriate manner." (Tr. p. 116, Volume I).

3. Mr. Anderson was presented with the hypothetical of having seized marijuana weighed at one point in time, and then weighed again some three or four years later, and the marijuana weighs less the second time than it did in the first instance. Mr. Anderson was then asked to provide possible reasons for this reduction in weight or "shrinkage." Potential reasons given were: some of the material was removed and destroyed through the testing process; spillage of some of the material upon repackaging it after testing; some of the material may have remained behind in the container that was used for weighing; inaccuracy of the balance or balances used; the individual conducting the weighing may not have been well trained and/or erred in weighing the substance in either the first or second instance, or both; the material itself may decompose; faulty packaging; and drying of the substance. (Tr. pp. 117-118, Volume I). Mr. Anderson further testified that to his knowledge that "there's no scientific testing per se done on shrinkage...in reference to seizure and holding" and that the information he was providing was obtained through his 17 years of experience as a KBI chemist. (Tr. p. 129, Volume I).

4. Mr. Anderson testified that anytime you want to determine how much shrinkage has occurred, you need to know at what point you started, what was the level of contamination, if you will, with solvents, and how much solvent, or moisture, was present initially in order to determine how much shrinkage has occurred because of the loss of solvent or moisture. (Tr. p. 119, Volume I).

5. Mr. Anderson could not provide a starting point of maximum moisture content of marijuana vegetation specifically. However, he stated that vegetation in general, of which marijuana is included, will begin to spoil during storage at a moisture content of 20 to 25 percent by weight. When presented with the hypothetical that marijuana that was seized in 1995 had no spoilage on the sample, his conclusion would be that the water content would be no higher than 20 to 25 percent by weight. (Tr. p. 120, Volume I).

6. Mr. Anderson testified that the storage conditions of any material will affect how much moisture it loses or gains from where it originally starts. The packaging and environment plays a large role in the loss or gain of moisture. Mr. Anderson testified that as the relative humidity in the atmosphere changes, the amount of moisture contained within vegetation that is dry is going to change. (Tr. pp. 121-122, Volume I).

7. Mr. Anderson testified that under ambient conditions, without the use of an oven or forced heat, vegetation may dry or lose 10 to 15 percent moisture by weight. Mr. Anderson further testified that in a hermetically sealed container there should be no appreciable gain or loss in moisture. Anderson opined that a conventional ziplock-type bag will restrict air exchange, and if it has not been punctured and it has been properly closed, it could approach, if not actually meet, a hermetically sealed condition, but typically, they do not. (Tr. pp. 122-124, Volume I).

8. In calculating the differences between the 1995 weights and the 1999 weights given to Items 10, 11, and 12, Mr. Anderson testified that Item No. 10 had a loss of 2.83 grams, Item No. 11 had a loss of 6.64 grams, and Item No. 12 had a loss of 2.11 grams. (Tr. p. 127, Volume I).

9. Mr. Anderson testified that vegetation dried in ambient conditions or under ambient conditions will stabilize in the ten to 15 percent range based on the humidity of the air, so the "outside numbers" would provide for a 15 percent loss. However, if the ambient conditions was around 20 percent, and the vegetation was close to spoilage, or 15 percent, currently, only a five percent loss due to drying would be present. Therefore, Mr. Anderson concluded that the range for loss of weight due to drying is approximately five (5) to fifteen (15) percent. (Tr. p. 132, Volume I). Based on the assumption that 4/10ths of a gram of each item was used up or destroyed for testing purposes, Mr. Anderson stated that the respective losses of weight of Items No. 10, 11, and 12 fall within the 5 to 15 percent range. (Tr. pp. 130, 133-4, Volume I).

10. Mr. Anderson testified that "shrinkage" or loss of weight due to drying could be a possible explanation for the differences in weight. However, Mr. Anderson further testified that this would not be a scientifically appropriate conclusion to draw since he was missing too many pieces of information. (Tr. pp. 134-5, Volume I).

12. When presented with the hypothetical that the marijuana might have been "semi-dry" (the moisture content was at the median point between dry and maximum content), Mr. Anderson concluded that such an initial moisture content would conceivably give a loss of weight of about five percent due to drying. This being the case, the respective losses in weight of Items 10, 11, and 12 would exceed this amount. (Tr. p. 135, Volume I).

13. Mr. Anderson testified on cross-examination that his earlier high-end projection of a 15 percent loss was based on ambient conditions, and not that the vegetation was contained in a ziploc bag. Assuming that the ziploc bag is sealed properly, and no air is exchanged, Mr. Anderson testified that the 15 percent loss due to drying would be difficult to obtain. (Tr. pp. 138-9, Volume I).

14. When Mr. Anderson was presented with the information that earlier testimony from the seizing officer indicated that in the officer's opinion, the particular sample in this case was processed, picked, had been compressed, had dried and was brownish in color, Mr. Anderson stated that this information would indicate that the moisture content was not in the excess of the 20 percent range, although he could not specifically say for sure. (Tr. p. 139, Volume I).

Jimmy D. Sparkman

1. Mr. Sparkman was employed by Shawnee County Sheriff's Department as a crime scene investigator during the years of 1994 to 1996. (Tr. p. 141, Volume I). A crime scene investigator investigated various types of crimes and also was responsible for the evidence in the property room. (Tr. p. 141, Volume I). Mr. Sparkman's office was located at the property room at Forbes Field during his employment. He primarily worked 4:00 p.m. to midnight and usually was the only person on duty during this time. (Tr. p. 142, Volume I).

2. Mr. Sparkman received "in-house training" from his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Richard Warrington, but he also attended various training classes and schools sponsored by various law enforcement agencies. (Tr. p. 142, Volume I). However, Mr. Sparkman has no formal education in the areas of chemistry or agronomy. (Tr. p. 142, Volume I).

3. Mr. Sparkman signed a property receipt, receiving this evidence on January 13, 1995. From there it either sat on the receiving table in the foyer of the property room or was placed in a box on a table in the small lab until it was eventually tested on March 13, 1995. It was not re-weighed. Although Mr. Sparkman did not specifically remember testing the marijuana in this case, he testified as to the four-phase test that was performed on vegetation believed to be marijuana. The first test was a microscopic examination. The second test was a chemical test known as the duquenois-levine test. The other two phases involved thin layer chromatography. (Tr. pp. 145-6, Volume I). Mr. Sparkman testified that all four tests must provide a positive indication that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is present before he would sign the document indicating the presence of THC in the substance. (Tr. p. 148, Volume I).

4. Mr. Sparkman testified that when he received the evidence in this case, it did not appear to have been tampered with prior to his testing the evidence. (Tr. p. 191, Volume I).

5. Mr. Sparkman testified that in testing the three marijuana samples in this case, he would have taken two test amounts (which he did not weigh) from each bag, and each test amount would be a "small pinch" that has the volume comparable to the size of three match heads. (Tr. p. 195-6, Volume I).

6. Mr. Sparkman testified that the three "identifiers" assigned to marijuana in their reports were: (1) the color, (2) stems or no stems, and (3) seeds or no seeds. With rare exception, Mr. Sparkman's training was that he was to indicate the material was "green vegetation" without getting too descriptive of colors. (Tr. p. 212-3, Volume I). Mr. Sparkman testified that even if another description of the marijuana was dry, compressed, with buds and seeds, his description in the lab form would still have been "green vegetation" and then the presence of seeds and stems if they were in fact present. (Tr. pp. 215-6, Volume I).

7. Mr. Sparkman testified that the environment when testing marijuana was insecure. Officers who would enter the testing area would have access to the evidence being tested. He testified it was not unusual to leave this evidence unattended for periods of time. (Tr. pp. 207-9, Volume I).

8. Mr. Sparkman testified that on one occasion he discovered a bag that purported to contain 12 packets of cocaine was missing four packets. (Tr. p. 149, Volume I). Mr. Sparkman testified that upon realizing four packets were missing, he called Detective Scott Holladay to notify him because Holladay had checked the evidence out of the property room for court. (Tr. pp. 149-50, Volume I). The bag that contained the packets of cocaine was kept in a locked cabinet, to which only Sergeant Warrington, Ken Smith, and Mr. Sparkman had access as far as Mr. Sparkman knew. (Tr. pp. 150-1, Volume I).

9. Mr. Sparkman testified that upon collecting the package that was supposed to have 12 bags of cocaine and only contained 8 bags, he noticed a hole in the package approximately five inches in diameter. (Tr. p. 180, Volume I). Mr. Sparkman further testified that he did not know that the defendant in that particular case had been acquitted and that the property room was merely storing the evidence until further direction for destruction or some other disposition. (Tr. p. 182-3, Volume I).

10. Mr. Sparkman testified that although it was not part of his employment duties, he did know that after Sergeant Warrington or Deputy Smith received a notice from the court stating that the evidence was no longer needed (as in the case of an acquittal), they would obtain a court order authorizing the destruction of the evidence. (Tr. p. 183, Volume I).

11. An internal investigation was being conducted by Detective Ramirez during the period of time when Mr. Sparkman found that cocaine was missing from the above mentioned bag. Mr. Sparkman underwent a polygraph examination related to the missing drugs. Mr. Sparkman testified that the polygraph examiner told him that he felt comfortable that Mr. Sparkman had no involvement in the missing drugs. (Tr. pp. 151-152, Volume I).

12. Mr. Sparkman testified that after he had left the Sheriff's Department, Sergeant Wanamaker contacted him and asked him to come down to the courthouse to his office to discuss other cases in which evidence had come up missing, although Mr. Sparkman had no information regarding these cases either. (Tr. p. 152, Volume I).

13. Mr. Sparkman recalled one instance in which he found drug evidence that had been missing in a sack on a wooden pallet in the back of the property room. (Tr. pp. 152-3, Volume I). This sack contained evidence from three cases that was collected by Frank Good. (Tr. p. 200, Volume I).

14. Mr. Sparkman testified that it was not uncommon for evidence to be "missing" in the property room during the period he worked there. However, Mr. Sparkman testified that most times the evidence had been misplaced in a different bin rather than its designated bin. (Tr. pp. 161-2, Volume I).

15. The Attorney General's office conducted an inquisition investigating the missing cocaine from 1994. During a hearing on August 1, 1996, Mr. Sparkman invoked his 5th Amendment right to not testify. (Tr. p. 167, Volume I).

16. Mr. Sparkman testified that he was not aware that Sergeant Warrington issued a three-page report in December of 1995 regarding missing evidence. (Tr. p. 199, Volume I). This report indicated that Sergeant Warrington had advised Sheriff Meneley that they were missing three cases that involved Frank Good as the collecting officer and Sparkman as the receiving officer. (Tr. pp. 204-5, Volume I).

17. Mr. Sparkman testified that initially, no log-in procedure was kept of individuals coming into the property room. After some time, a log-in procedure was instituted, but before that, law enforcement personnel were allowed to enter the property room unescorted. Mr. Sparkman testified that even after the log-in procedure was instituted, it was seldom enforced because the only restroom in the property room was located in an area where evidence was stored. (Tr. pp. 155-6, Volume I).

18. Mr. Sparkman was suspended for three days by the Sheriff's Department for drinking alcohol while he was on call-back status. (Tr. p. 174-5, Volume I).

19. On February 2, 1996, Mr. Sparkman was charged with Rape and Aggravated Burglary in case number 96 CR 478. On May 1, 1996, he was bound over for trial on Rape charges and subsequently acquitted at trial. As a result of this case and other work related difficulties, Sparkman was dismissed from the Sheriff's Office.

Deputy Philip Blume

1. Deputy Blume is currently employed by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. He is currently assigned as the school resource officer at Shawnee Heights High School employed by the agency. In 1994 and 1995, Deputy Blume was assigned to the Narcotics unit and was assigned various duties including working an undercover role and assisting with case management. Deputy Blume testified that other officers that were assigned to the unit at that time were Detective Scott Holladay, Detective Dan Jaramillo, Deputy David Ritchie, Deputy Tim Oblander and Deputy Scott Baker. Deputy Blume further testified that he did not work directly with Frank Good. (Tr. pp. 5-6, Volume II).

2. Between June 1994 to January, 1996, Deputy Blume and Detective Daniel Jaramillo were assigned to the FBI Violent Crimes Strike Force. Periodically, they would meet with the Sheriff to provide him with updates on any progress. After these meetings, Deputy Blume made notes of the meetings. Deputy Blume testified that sometime around July, 1995, both he and Detective Daniel Jaramillo had attended one such meeting to update the Sheriff. Deputy Blume testified that at this meeting, Sheriff Meneley asked both him and Detective Daniel Jaramillo whether they had ever had an occasion where they found cocaine, or any other drug, from an investigation to be missing. Deputy Blume testified that the Sheriff explained he was asking the question due to the missing cocaine from approximately one year prior, and now (July, 1995) evidence was missing again. (Tr. pp. 6-9, Volume II).

3. Deputy Blume testified that Sheriff Meneley told Deputy Blume and Detective Jaramillo that he was asking the questions regarding missing narcotics because he had uncovered information that Officer Tim Oblander was responsible for the missing cocaine. Deputy Blume testified that Sheriff Meneley indicated that he had met with Officer Oblander and Deputy Blume's memorandum (that he wrote some time later) stated that Sheriff Meneley indicated that he had personally questioned Officer Oblander. Deputy Blume further testified that Sheriff Meneley indicated that Officer Oblander was responsible for the missing cocaine and indicated that Officer Oblander was currently going through rehabilitation. Deputy Blume also testified that Sheriff Meneley told both him and Detective Jaramillo that Officer Oblander had been: using drugs that he bought at work; reopening sealed evidence bags; using a portion of them, adding foreign substances, and resealing them; that Oblander had tried marijuana and methamphetamine but primarily used cocaine. Deputy Blume testified that the Sheriff stated that it was the Sheriff's opinion that Officer Frank Good was responsible for the actions of Officer Oblander. (Tr. pp.10-12, Volume II).

4. Deputy Blume testified that during this meeting, Detective Jaramillo asked Sheriff Meneley about what was to be done about these cases going forward for prosecution. Deputy Blume further testified that Sheriff Meneley left him with the impression that Sheriff Meneley would handle it. (Tr. pp. 13-14, Volume II).

5. Deputy Blume testified that he became concerned around December, 1995 about the cases being forwarded for prosecution. Deputy Blume testified that around this time period, Detective Jaramillo advised Deputy Blume that Special Agent Ron Elder of the FBI, who was also in charge of the FBI Violent Crime Strike Force approached him, had mentioned some information that he had heard regarding some possible evidence tampering. (Tr. p. 14, Volume II).

6. Deputy Blume testified that after receiving this information from Special Agent Elder, he became so concerned about the cases being forwarded for prosecution, and potential liability on his part, that he discussed this with Detective Jaramillo and felt that he would be more comfortable if he sought the opinion of an attorney, which he in fact sought out. (Tr. pp. 14-15, Volume II).

7. Deputy Blume testified that he was never asked by the Attorney General's office or the KBI to give a sworn statement, but that he did offer to take a polygraph when he talked to the KBI during the course of this investigation. (Tr. p. 16, Volume II).

8. Deputy Blume testified that in the notes that he made after this meeting with Sheriff Meneley and Detective Jaramillo, he was under the impression that Officer Oblander was in debt to the Sheriff. Deputy Blume further testified that this impression was created by Sheriff Meneley saying that Oblander would owe him, which Deputy Blume took to mean that Sheriff Meneley would be helping Officer Oblander out to some extent. (Tr. p. 18, Volume II).

9. Deputy Blume testified that after Sheriff Meneley had provided some information regarding evidence that had apparently been opened and foreign substances added, Detective Jaramillo asked the Sheriff what was to become of those cases which the evidence had been opened and the Sheriff responded that the cases were fine and they would be forwarded for prosecution. (Tr. p. 20, Volume II).

10. Deputy Blume testified that at no point in his conversation with Sheriff Meneley and Detective Jaramillo did Sheriff Meneley give the impression one way or the other regarding whether the District Attorney's office was being notified of the missing drugs. (Tr. p. 20, Volume II).

11. Deputy Blume testified that in January, 1996, he realized that these cases were being forwarded for prosecution without anything being done by the Sheriff's Department to notify the District Attorney's office, so he took it upon himself to notify the District Attorney's office. (Tr. p. 21, Volume II).

12. Deputy Blume testified that at a meeting that was two or three months prior to the July, 1995 meeting, Major Ken Pierce made Sheriff Meneley aware of some exorbitant expenditures of Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) funds and Sheriff Buy Fund. Deputy Blume further testified that the two officers whose spending that was called into question were Officer Good and Officer Oblander. (Tr. pp. 24-25, Volume II).

13. Deputy Blume testified that at the time the KBI began the interviews for the investigation of the Sheriff's Department, Undersheriff Huffmier was directed by Sheriff Meneley to retrieve the BJA and Sheriff's Buy Fund receipts from the storage facility at Forbes Field. (Tr. pp. 25-26, Volume II).

14. Deputy Blume testified that the reason given to him for the Sheriff's decision to remove him and Detective Jaramillo from the FBI Violent Crime Strike Force was that there was a need for him and Detective Jaramillo to rejoin the unit at the Sheriff's Department as opposed to remaining on the Strike Force. At the time Deputy Blume and Detective Jaramillo were removed from the Strike Force, they were working on a large scale, multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional investigation regarding the transportation of cocaine called the Juarez investigation. Deputy Blume further testified that once they were pulled off the Strike Force, they were allowed to finish up some parts of their investigation, but they were not allowed to follow through on the entire investigation. Deputy Blume testified that despite the repeated requests from the U.S. Attorney's Office, he and Detective Jaramillo were not allowed to follow up their investigation with the Strike Force to the U.S. Attorney's Office's satisfaction which resulted in a number of the people that were targeted by the Strike Force could not be prosecuted. (Tr. pp. 26-29, Volume II).

15. Deputy Blume testified that the Sheriff's Department was required to spend the BJA money before the end of the year, because it does not accumulate from year to year. (Tr. pp. 31-32, Volume II).

16. Deputy Blume testified that he has now learned how "corruption" can occur within an agency. Deputy Blume testified that he would still be willing to take a polygraph examination regarding any of the information that he has provided. (Tr. p. 32, Volume II).

17. Deputy Blume was presented with a file concerning a reverse buy and was questioned as to why there would be money placed in the file. Deputy Blume testified that although it was his file, his partner Dave Ritchie had signed the custody receipt so he would not be able to explain why Dave Ritchie might have left money in the file. (Tr. p. 47, Volume III).

18. Deputy Blume's personnel records that contained his civil service ranking indicated the following:

October '89 -- April '90: 84.8

April '90 -- October '90: 81.0

October '90 -- April '91: 82.4; "Officer Blume is doing a fine job considering he is new at this type of work. I feel he will continue to improve as time goes on. Captain Lovelace."

April '91 -- October '91: 84.06

October '91 -- April '92: 84.93

April '92 -- October '92: 85.67

October '92 -- April '93: 80.13

April '93 -- October '93: 87.66; "Good work, capable of doing job from beginning to end."

October '93 -- April '94: 88.2; "He develops good quality work."

July 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994: 86.53; "Officer Blume has been working with the federal task force. He does good quality work."

January 1, 1995 -- June 30, 1995: 87.64

July 1, 1995 -- December 31, 1995: 88.28

January 1, 1996 -- June 30, 1996: 81.92

July 1, 1997 -- December 31, 1997: 85.0

January 1, 1998 -- June 30, 1998: 85.8

July 1, 1998 -- January 1, 1999: 75.47; This evaluation covered Officer Blume's new job as the school resource officer.

(Tr. pp. 48-54, Volume III).

Detective Daniel Jaramillo

1. Daniel Jaramillo is a detective with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and is currently assigned to the Uniformed Legal Process Division, in which he serves civil and criminal documentation. Detective Jaramillo was promoted to the rank of detective in November of 1986, and was given an extended tour of duty in the Narcotics unit until 1994 when he was sent to the FBI task force. (Tr. pp. 33-34, Volume II).

2. Detective Jaramillo testified that in the July, 1995, conversation that he had with Deputy Blume and Sheriff Meneley, the Sheriff said he was unhappy with the work product that came out of the Narcotics Unit at that time. Detective Jaramillo told the Sheriff that he thought there seemed to be a lack of direction and overall focus in the Narcotics Unit, with which the Sheriff agreed. (Tr. pp. 36-37, Volume II). Detective Jaramillo further testified that this comment was made in reference to the further comment that Deputy Oblander and Deputy Good had spent $3,000 in one month with nothing to show for it. Detective Jaramillo assumed that the "nothing to show for it" meant that they were not producing or making any progress in any investigations. (Tr. p. 37, Volume II).

3. Detective Jaramillo testified that during this July, 1995 conversion, Sheriff Meneley disclosed to Deputy Blume and Detective Jaramillo that Deputy Tim Oblander had been using illegal drugs during the time he was assigned to the Narcotic unit, that Oblander had developed a drug problem with crack cocaine, and that he was currently in a drug treatment facility for that problem. Detective Jaramillo further testified that Sheriff Meneley had told him that the Sheriff received his information from Deputy Oblander himself as Deputy Oblander had confessed to the Sheriff. Detective Jaramillo testified that the Sheriff indicated that he was conducting an investigation into the matter, and Detective Jaramillo left it at that. (Tr. pp. 38-39, Volume II).

4. Detective Jaramillo testified that at some point in October, 1995, he decided to talk to Detective Holladay about Deputy Oblander using drugs and possibly compromising evidence. Detective Jaramillo further testified that Detective Holladay then related his experience of going to court with Sergeant Good and discovering that Sgt. Good's evidence had been tampered with and Sgt. Good thought it may be Deputy Oblander who had tampered with it. (Tr. pp. 39-41, Volume II).

5. Detective Jaramillo testified that during his conversation with Sheriff Meneley he asked what would happen with the cases believed to have been tampered with regarding prosecution. Detective Jaramillo testified that Sheriff Meneley stated that he saw no problem with any of those cases and he planned to forward them for prosecution. (Tr. p. 42, Volume II).

6. Detective Jaramillo testified that the KBI had asked him if he would take a polygraph and he said he would. Detective Jaramillo reconfirmed his willingness to take a polygraph. (Tr. p. 44, Volume II).

7. Detective Jaramillo testified that shortly after the KBI began their investigation of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, he was reassigned to the Uniformed Operation division, which is a non-detective position, despite his more than ten years experience as a detective. (Tr. p. 45, Volume II).

8. Detective Jaramillo testified that according to information he had received from other officials, he was hand-picked to go to the strike force because he had a lot of experience in conducting criminal investigations. (Tr. p. 49, Volume II).

9. Detective Jaramillo testified that during his July, 1995 meeting with Sheriff Meneley, the Sheriff had revealed that Deputy Oblander had taken drug evidence from the evidence locker and that the Sheriff specifically associated this theft of drug evidence with evidence that belonged to one of Detective Holladay's cases. (Tr. p. 53, Volume II).

10. Detective Jaramillo testified that paragraph 7 in his July, 1995 memorandum referred to the Sheriff disclosing Deputy Oblander's method of operation to obtain illegal drugs. Detective Jaramillo testified that his memorandum indicated that the Sheriff had told him that Deputy Oblander would be acting in the capacity as an undercover officer, buy drugs from a drug suspect and then consume a portion to satisfy his addiction, then in an attempt to conceal his actions, Deputy Oblander would replace the used portion of his drug evidence with another foreign substance, something that would be similar in color, texture and weight so that no one would know that this evidence had been tampered with. (Tr. p. 53-4, Volume II).

11. Detective Jaramillo testified that he felt his reassignment to the Uniformed Division, which is a non-detective position, was a form of punitive action taken by Sheriff Meneley against him for cooperating with the KBI during their investigation. (Tr. p. 58, Volume II).

12. Detective Jaramillo testified that he disagreed with Sheriff Meneley's statement that he was notoriously sloppy in handling evidence. (Tr. p. 83, Volume III).

13. Detective Jaramillo's personnel records that contained his civil service ranking indicated the following:

April '89 -- October '89: 84.6

October '89 -- April '90: 89.0

April '90 -- October '90: 85.0

October '90 -- April '91: 87.33

April '91 -- October '91: 88.26

October '91 -- April '92: 90.33

April '92 -- October '92: 87.15

Oct. 1, 1993 -- Apr. 1, 1993: 86.0

Apr. 1, 1993 -- Oct. 1, 1993: 88.13

Oct. 1, 1993 -- Apr. 1, 1994: 88.4

July 1, 1994 -- Dec. 31, 1994: 87.47; "Detective Jaramillo represents our department very well. He has good people skills. He has been working with the federal task force, however, he was reporting to me almost on a weekly basis." Lt. James Honn.

Jan. 1, 1995 -- June 30, 1995: 88.57

July 1, 1995 -- Dec. 31, 1995: 89.0

Apr. 1, 1996 -- June 30, 1996: 88.13; "Reports are complete and detailed."

"Very dependable, does his job well and doesn't complain."

Jan. 1, 1998 -- July 9, 1998: 90.8

July 1, 1998 -- Dec. 31, 1998: 78.6

(Tr. pp. 83-87).

14. Detective Jaramillo testified that he has never had anyone talk to him about the handling of his evidence. Detective Jaramillo stated that in the almost 19 years that he has been with the Sheriff's Department, there has never been a question about his evidence associated with any of his investigations whether it was a criminal or a civil case. (Tr. pp. 87-88, Volume III). Detective Jaramillo further testified that he has never been verbally counseled or reprimanded in relation to any evidence that he has handled over the years. (Tr. p. 88, Volume III).

Sergeant Frank Good

1. Sgt. Good was Deputy Oblander's working partner in the Special Services Unit and Sgt. Good testified that he also considered Deputy Oblander a close personal friend. (Tr. pp. 62-63, Volume II).

2. Sgt. Good testified that he had been required to seek counseling while employed at the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. (Tr. pp. 63-64, Volume II).

3. Sgt. Good testified that upon finding Deputy Oblander after the Deputy's "disappearance," Deputy Oblander told him that he was having some problems at home and he just needed some time to think and be alone. Sgt. Good testified that he did not ask Deputy Oblander whether he had been drinking, but he did ask Deputy Oblander whether the Deputy had been using drugs. Sgt. Good further testified that although he did not specifically remember smelling the odor of alcohol, he assumes that he did, because the Sgt. knew in his own mind that Deputy Oblander had been drinking. (Tr. pp. 65-66, Volume II).

4. Sgt. Good testified that Deputy Oblander told him that Deputy Oblander's treatment at Valley Hope was for alcohol and that the Deputy was an alcoholic. (Tr. p. 68, Volume II).

5. Sgt. Good testified that he recalled one instance when Sgt. Dick Warrington was subpoenaed to bring evidence to the court and the first buy that Sgt. Good had made in that case had completely disappeared, and Sgt. Good was told by Assistant District Attorney that the case would not be "filed." This case was the Yousif case. (Tr. pp. 70-72, Volume II).

6. Sgt. Good testified that he never spoke with Detective Holladay about Deputy Oblander receiving drug treatment or that Deputy Oblander had been opening sealed evidence bags. (Tr. p. 73, Volume II).

7. Sgt. Good testified that his personal opinion as to why Detective Holladay would testify that Sgt. Good told him Deputy Oblander was stealing narcotics and receiving drug treatment was just a way for Detective Holladay to build himself up and look better. Sgt. Good testified that he believed that the evidence that Detective Holladay reportedly placed in the evidence locker was missing before the evidence was ever placed in the drawer because it is "physically impossible" to remove evidence from the drawer without unlocking them, and Deputy Oblander did not have access to unlock the drawers. (Tr. p. 74, Volume II).

8. Sgt. Good testified that he was at Detective Jack Metz' apartment on a personal basis and the two of them had a conversation regarding Deputy Oblander's treatment. Sgt. Good testified that there were two conversations going on at the same time about two different individuals, Deputy Oblander and a confidential informant. (Tr. pp. 74-75, Volume II). Sgt. Good denied telling Detective Metz that Deputy Oblander's treatment at Valley Hope was for drugs, or that the missing drugs were due to Deputy Oblander taking them. (Tr. pp. 75-76, Volume II). Sgt. Good testified that Detective Metz must have been confused as to who he was talking about, because Sgt. Good claimed that he was talking about the confidential informant, and not about Deputy Oblander. (Tr. p. 77, Volume II). Sgt. Good further testified that the comment referenced in the KBI report regarding someone "chasing that first high" was made by Sgt. Good to Detective Metz in their conversation, but that Sgt. Good was talking about the confidential informant, and not Deputy Oblander. (Tr. p. 84, Volume II).

9. Sgt. Good testified that he did not say anything to Detective Metz about Deputy Oblander allegedly stealing drugs used to train a K-9 because he did not even know that Deputy Oblander had drugs to train the K-9, he thought it was just a tennis ball. (Tr. p. 76, Volume II).

10. Sgt. Good testified that Sheriff Meneley did not tell him anything about Deputy Oblander using drug evidence. (Tr. pp. 78-79, Volume II).

11. Sgt. Good testified that Deputy Oblander and himself were directed by Captain Lovelace to attempt to buy drugs at a gentleman's entertainment club, and within the month of January, 1995, $3,000 of Sheriff's buy money was expended, and few, if any, prosecutable cases were being made. (Tr. pp. 80-81, Volume II).

12. Sgt. Good testified that he did recall spending some $400 on crack cocaine and no prosecutable cases resulted because the individual selling the crack cocaine became a confidential informant. (Tr. pp. 81-82, Volume II).

13. Sgt. Good testified that on occasion he would buy crack cocaine and then drive to Holiday Inn and turn the evidence over to Deputy Oblander. Sgt. Good further testified that he knows that the evidence was turned into the property room because he weighed and tested it, and he either put it in an evidence locker or took it to the KBI himself. (Tr. pp. 82-83, Volume II).

14. Sgt. Good testified that he was never asked to take a polygraph examination as a result of an internal affairs investigation and that he has never offered to take an polygraph examination. (Tr. p. 84, Volume II).

15. Sgt. Good testified that he was not accusing Detective Holladay of stealing evidence or knowing where the missing evidence was when he stated that the missing evidence never made it into the locker. Sgt. Good testified that he thinks it is physically impossible for the evidence to have been retrieved from the locker without a key, and that Detective Holladay did not check the evidence before he put it into the locker. (Tr. pp. 87-89, Volume II).

16. Sgt. Good testified that it was not unusual to see "dope" laying in Detective Holladay's office underneath his table, underneath his desk, or in his bottom drawer, so lots of people could have had access to the drugs that came up missing. (Tr. p. 89, Volume II).

17. Sgt. Good testified that although he could not remember virtually anything about the conversation he had with Detective Holladay about Deputy Oblander, he testified that he is certain it was not what Detective Holladay claims he said. (Tr. p. 93, Volume II).

18. Sgt. Good testified that although he had no prior knowledge of Deputy Oblander using drugs, upon Deputy Gowan locating Deputy Oblander after his disappearance, Sgt. Good asked Deputy Oblander if he was taking drugs because it was strange that Deputy Oblander just went off and disappeared. (Tr. pp. 95-96, Volume II).

19. Sgt. Good testified that when the KBI interviewed him in March, 1996 to determine what information Sgt. Good had concerning any substance abuse by Deputy Oblander, Sgt. Good refused to admit or deny any such knowledge based on a belief that he was under a confidential duty not to disclose such information, and not because he was wishing to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. After conferring with the Honorable James P. Buchele, Third Judicial District, who opined that Sgt. Good should answer the questions, Sgt. Good elected to respond to the questions posed. (Tr. pp. 99-101, Volume II).

20. Sgt. Good denied telling Detective Holladay that Deputy Oblander was at Valley Hope treatment facility for drug treatment, denied telling Detective Holladay that Deputy Oblander was addicted to drugs and had been for over a year, and denied telling Detective Holladay that Deputy Oblander had actually used some drugs from the cases that Sgt. Good had worked. (Tr. p. 105, Volume II).

21. Sgt. Good testified that he did not take evidence out of the three cases (2 Scales cases and the case involving Quincy Ford) identified by the KBI Report as having evidence missing. Sgt. Good also testified that his partner on those three cases was Deputy Oblander. (Tr. pp. 112-113, Volume II).

22. Sgt. Good testified that as to State's exhibits Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he was the "collecting officer" on all three cases because he purchased the cocaine in the undercover operation and Deputy Oblander was working with him on all three cases. Sgt. Good also testified that he did not take any cocaine from any of these cases, nor was he using drugs at that time. (Tr. pp. 117-119, Volume II).

23. Sgt. Good testified that in working on the Yousif case, he had never seen an evidence bag that had a hole in it or had been opened up and that he himself never found any of the evidence to be missing. Sgt. Good testified that he was notified at a later point, he believes by Sgt. Warrington, that the first buy that Sgt. Good had made was missing. Sgt. Good further testified that he did not know that the Defendant, Abel Yousif, plead guilty because Assistant District Attorney Tony Rues informed him that the case was not going to be prosecuted because drug evidence was missing, and Sgt. assumed this meant the matter was over. (Tr. pp. 120-125, Volume II).

24. Sgt. Good testified that as far as he knew, the KBI did not go into the property room and look at the physical evidence that had been collected and he was never to do so to try to locate the missing drugs. (Tr. pp. 129-130, Volume II).

25. The patient information release authorization form signed by Timothy Oblander authorized Leann Oblander and Frank Good as individuals that were authorized to receive information. Sgt. Good testified that his understanding was that this authorization allowed him to call Deputy Oblander while Deputy Oblander was in treatment, and that he was not aware it gave him access to any of Deputy Oblander's treatment information. (Tr. pp. 124-126, Volume VII).

26. As previously disclosed by the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated March 1, 1999, an entry in Deputy Oblander's treatment records indicated that Deputy Oblander had stated that he had been able to conceal his drug addiction up until about two weeks prior to making this statement, but now everyone knew. Sgt. Good testified that he would not be included in that "everyone." (Tr. pp. 126-127, Volume VII).

27. Sgt. Good testified that Deputy Oblander did not tell him, and he did not otherwise know, that Deputy Oblander had a problem with cocaine, or any other substance with the exception of alcohol. (Tr. p. 127, Volume VII).

28. Sgt. Good testified that there was no mechanism in place to prevent a officer who was purchasing narcotics from removing some of the narcotics for whatever reason and only turning in a portion of the amount purchased to the property room. (Tr. p. 166, Volume VII). Sgt. Good further testified that when a purchase of narcotics is made, the purchasing officer fills out the receipt for reference purposes as to how much was spent, so the administration has to take the officer's word that the money was spent like it says on the receipt. (Tr. p. 169, Volume VII).

Detective Jack Metz

1. Detective Metz has been employed by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department for 22 years and considered Deputy Oblander and Sgt. Good to be good personal friends. (Tr. pp. 134-135, Volume II).

2. Detective Metz stated that his friendship with Deputy Oblander and Sgt. Good dissipated when Sgt. Good stopped by his apartment one day and a conversation ensued. Detective Metz testified that during this conversation Sgt. Good stated that Deputy Oblander had taken some time off and Detective Metz knew right away what treatment facility Deputy Oblander was at based on working around narcotics for so long. Detective Metz further testified that there was no doubt that the conversation was referencing narcotics use, and not alcohol use. Detective Metz testified that Sgt. Good told him that Deputy Oblander had "gotten into" crack cocaine and that it had all started when Deputy Oblander was training his dog. Detective Metz recalled that Sgt. Good told him that Deputy Oblander had told Sgt. Good that Deputy Oblander was still "chasing the first high." Detective Metz testified that he asked Sgt. Good if Deputy Oblander was the one that took the evidence and Sgt. Good replied in the affirmative. Detective Metz testified that he asked Sgt. Good whether Sheriff Meneley was going to fire Deputy Oblander and have him prosecuted and Sgt. Good responded that the Sheriff was going to "take care of it." Detective Metz testified that he interpreted this to mean that Sheriff Meneley was going to cover it up. (Tr. pp. 136-137, Volume II).

3. Detective Metz testified that he had been conversing with a confidential informant that had told him that Deputy Oblander had been using drugs and that the confidential informant had been with Deputy Oblander at times when they would buy crack cocaine and Deputy Oblander would turn in part of what they bought and they would keep the other part. (Tr. p. 138, Volume II). Detective Metz testified that the confidential informant had based the conclusion that Deputy Oblander was using drugs on the fact that he was keeping part of the drugs that he was supposed to be turning in, as well as one incident in which the confidential informant went into the Sheriff's office early in the morning and saw Deputy Oblander with his head down on the desk and the air was filled with the aroma of burning crack cocaine. Detective Metz testified that the confidential informant had related to him that the confidential informant did not actually see Deputy Oblander smoke the crack cocaine, but he could smell the aroma. Detective Metz testified that the purported confusion as to who was being talked about in the conversation between himself and Sgt. Good did not exist. Detective Metz testified he knew exactly who they were talking about and that was Deputy Oblander. (Tr. pp. 139-140, Volume II).

4. KBI Agent Robert interviewed Detective Metz and had indicated in the report on the interview that Detective Metz had indicated that he thought Sgt. Good would lie for Deputy Oblander and Sheriff Meneley. Detective Metz testified that he had also indicated in his interview to KBI Agent Robert that he felt that the people who had supported Sheriff Meneley during the months before the election were handpicked for special jobs. Detective Metz further testified that Sgt. Good and Deputy Oblander would both have fit into the category of such handpicked people. (Tr. pp. 141-142, Volume II).

5. Detective Metz testified that he was never required by the KBI to testify under subpoena nor was he asked to take a polygraph examination, however, he would be willing to take a polygraph examination. (Tr. pp. 142-143, Volume II).

Corporal Timothy Oblander

1. Timothy Oblander was a Corporal with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office until his resignation effective 2/26/99, and had been a law enforcement officer for the last 14 years.

2. During the Attorney General inquisition in July, 1996, Cpl. Oblander was presented with questions addressing: (1) whether Cpl. Oblander had any knowledge of the missing cocaine from the Shawnee County Sheriff's evidence locker on or about July 19, 1994; (2) whether Cpl. Oblander had talked to anybody regarding whether it would be someone employed with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department or not about the missing cocaine; (3) whether Cpl. Oblander had made any statements to Sheriff Meneley about the missing cocaine from the Sheriff's department locker; (4) whether Cpl. Oblander had talked to Sheriff Meneley at any point in time regarding Oblander's knowledge of the whereabouts of cocaine that was discovered missing; and (5) whether Cpl. Oblander had told Sheriff Meneley that Cpl. Oblander was undergoing drug treatment at any particular facility. Cpl. Oblander exercised his Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer any of the above questions. (Tr. pp. 144-146, Volume II).

3. Cpl. Oblander was subpoenaed to testify in a drug case (State v. Boyette) on or around November 23, 1998. Cpl. Oblander exercised his Fifth Amendment right and declined to testify or otherwise answer questions and the case was subsequently dismissed. Cpl. Oblander testified that at the time when he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to refrain from testifying, he was not aware that personal embarrassment was not a legal reason to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Cpl. Oblander released a press statement indicated that the reason he exercised his Fifth Amendment right in the Boyette case was that he did not want the embarrassment of people finding out that he had an alcohol problem and other problems related to alcohol. (Tr. pp. 146-148, Volume II).

4. Cpl. Oblander testified that during the years of 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, he never used crack cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine. Cpl. Oblander further testified that he never stole evidence from locker rooms, storage bins, or Sparkman's testing table. Cpl. Oblander testified that he never purchased narcotics and turned part of it in while keeping a part for himself. Cpl. Oblander also testified that he did not request funds to make buys and then kept either part or all of the drugs or a part of the money. (Tr. pp. 149-150, Volume II).

5. In 1993 Cpl. Oblander was training canines. This training involved utilizing drugs and narcotics to sensitize the dogs to these specific substances. On September 9, 1993, Cpl. Oblander came up 19.6 grams of marijuana short, 1.8 grams of methamphetamine short, and 1.5 grams of cocaine short. Cpl. Oblander further testifies that he wrote a report covering the shortage, however, Sgt. Warrington represented to Agent Robert in 1996 that he still did not have a report. (Tr. pp. 150-151, Volume II).

6. Cpl. Oblander testified that he had observed evidence laying about in Detective Holladay's office and that he access to Detective Holladay's office in 1994 and 1995. (Tr. pp. 155-156, Volume II).

7. Cpl. Oblander testified that upon being found after his "disappearance," he was immediately (that day) taken to get counseling. Cpl. Oblander testified that after this immediate counseling, and despite his problems with alcohol, he returned to work in the Special Services Unit for a few months, working in the same environment. Cpl. Oblander also testified that he was not disciplined in any way by the Sheriff's Department for his disappearance. (Tr. pp. 166-167; 195, Volume II). Cpl. Oblander testified that he was in fact drunk when he was eventually found. (Tr. p. 185, Volume II). Cpl. Oblander also testified that during the few months after being found drunk, with no action being taken by the Sheriff's Office, he continued to drink on the job by buying drinks for suspects and drinking in bars, as well as drinking on his personal time. (Tr. p. 188, Volume II).

8. Cpl. Oblander testified that he has not been asked to take a polygraph examination about the events that he has testified to and that he would not be willing to take such examination. (Tr. pp. 189-190, Volume II). Cpl. Oblander testified that he would not be willing to take a polygraph examination even if the results were to be made available only to the Judge or if the parties stipulated that the results would be admissible. Cpl. Oblander further testified that he would not voluntarily release his records from Valley Hope even if they were to be made available only to the Judge. (Tr. pp. 194-195, Volume II).

9. After being advised that mere embarrassment is not a proper reason to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Cpl. Oblander agreed to answer the questions that were posed to him in the July, 1996 Attorney General inquisition. Cpl. Oblander testified that he knew that drugs were missing but that he did not know by what mechanism they became missing. Cpl. Oblander testified that the only people he had talked about the missing cocaine with were the KBI investigators, Frank (Good), the Sheriff (Dave Meneley), and anybody that was in the narcotics division. Cpl. Oblander testified that he has made statements to Sheriff Meneley saying that he did not steal the evidence that was missing. Cpl. Oblander testified that he never told Sheriff Meneley that he was undergoing drug treatment at any particular facility. Cpl. Oblander further testified that he sought treatment at Valley Hope solely for alcohol abuse. (Tr. pp. 190-194, Volume II).

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Agent Duane Robert

1. Agent Robert is an Agent with the KBI and was involved in the investigation of missing evidence from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office in 1996. (Tr. p. 199, Volume II).

2. Agent Robert testified as to a conversation he had with Sgt. Warrington regarding additional evidence that Sgt. Warrington had discovered was missing from the evidence lockers in the course of performing an inventory. Agent Robert testified that he has no knowledge as to whether that inventory was ever completed. (Tr. pp. 201-202, Volume II).

Sheriff Dave Meneley

1. Dave Meneley is the duly elected Sheriff of Shawnee County. (Tr. p. 209, Volume II).

2. Sheriff Meneley testified that upon finding out that there was cocaine missing in the Caldwell case, he ordered Detective Mike Ramirez, who was a detective, to investigate it. During this internal affairs (IA) investigation, Detective Ramirez polygraphed three suspects: Detective Holladay, J.D. Sparkman, and a janitor; all of whom gave purportedly truthful responses. (Tr. p. 231, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley further testified that the power to decide who to polygraph was held by Detective Ramirez. (Tr. pp. 209-210, Volume II).

3. Sheriff Meneley testified that in 1994 at the time that it became apparent that there was no answer for the missing cocaine, he did not order an inventory of all of the evidence in the department. Sheriff Meneley also testified that he did not request outside help from another agency at that point to help him discover what, if anything, was happening in his department. (Tr. p. 211, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley further testified that he had no knowledge of the subsequent problems with missing evidence in 1995 that was uncovered by the KBI investigation until the KBI report was released, (in November 1998) and if he would have had such knowledge, he certainly would have opened an investigation. (Tr. p. 212, Volume II).

4. Sheriff Meneley testified that he did have a conversation with the head of the KBI, Agent Welch, prior to the KBI's entrance into investigating the Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Meneley testified that Agent Welch merely informed him that the Attorney General's office had been investigating it and to basically tell Sheriff Meneley that this investigation was going to happen. (Tr. pp. 212-213, Volume II).

5. Sheriff Meneley testified that he asked Agent Vick to do an audit of the Sheriff's Department's drug cases, referring to all the cases that they had in their property room. Sheriff Meneley also testified that while Agent Vick never let him know one way or another as to whether he agreed to perform the audit, but to the best of the Sheriff's knowledge, no one actually went back to match up the physical evidence with the reports from the BJA nor did anyone reweigh and check the integrity of evidence. (Tr. pp. 213-214, Volume II).

6. Sheriff Meneley testified that he did not recall Sgt. Warrington ever informing him about evidence coming up missing in either 1995 or 1996, or recall Sgt. Warrington asking for more help in completing an inventory, or telling Sgt. Warrington that the fewer people that handle the evidence the better. (Tr. pp. 217-219, Volume II).

7. Sheriff Meneley testified that at no time during the years of 1994 until just recently did he implement an inventory or contact the District Attorney's office regarding cases that are going to trial on evidence that is suspect. (Tr. p. 220, Volume II).

8. Sheriff Meneley testified that he recently found out that a practice of some of his narcotics officers was to put evidence into files by paper clip, tape, and staples. This was discovered during the audit that was launched by Sheriff Meneley in late 1998. Sheriff Meneley also testified that he hired a person out of New York to come and do a complete audit, but this was to be done after the Sheriff's Department has completed their own audit of themselves. Sheriff Meneley said that officers that were more "prone" to putting evidence in files were Detective Holladay, Detective Blume, and Detective Jaramillo (Tr. 220-223, Volume II).

9. Sheriff Meneley testified that the conversation (regarding Oblander's use of evidence to satisfy his habit and the Sheriff having knowledge of such facts) allegedly taking place during a meeting with Detective Jaramillo and Deputy Blume did not happen. (Tr. pp. 223-224, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley testified that he would not be willing to take a polygraph examination, even on the sole question of whether he had made the alleged statements to Detective Jaramillo and Deputy Blume. (Tr. p. 224, Volume II).

10. Sheriff Meneley testified that he would agree that there's an obligation not to send cases with tampered evidence forward for prosecution. (Tr. p. 228, Volume II).

11. Sheriff Meneley testified that he did know that Cpl. Oblander was found in a condition of being intoxicated and unable to perform his job. (Tr. pp. 234-235, Volume II).

12. Sheriff Meneley testified in one instance that Detective Holladay was always a "neat freak" and if the other Officers ever needed to seal something up, or needed supplies, Detective Holladay always had some. However, Sheriff Meneley also testified that Detective Holladay kept drug evidence in his desk and file cabinet and was notorious for mishandling evidence. (Tr. pp. 243, 256, Volume II).

13. Sheriff Meneley testified that the only conversation that he would have possibly had with Detective Jaramillo and Deputy Blume regarding Cpl. Oblander would be that he told them that Cpl. Oblander was at Valley Hope for substance abuse treatment. Sheriff Meneley testified that the term "substance abuse" to him means alcohol abuse, and that he did not intend to imply or suggest drug use. Sheriff Meneley testified that he offered to become a sponsor for Cpl. Oblander, which he could not have done if Cpl. Oblander's problem had been a drug addiction. (Tr. pp. 245-246, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley testified that during the same meeting, he did not say that Cpl. Oblander was stealing evidence, replacing evidence, and using evidence, so there was no room for any interpretation. (Tr. p. 254, Volume II).

14. Sheriff Meneley testified that during the time frame between Cpl. Oblander's disappearance and subsequent psychological evaluation and the time when Cpl. Oblander was admitted to Valley Hope for treatment, the Sheriff was not aware that Cpl. Oblander had an alcohol problem, he simply thought the "disappearance" was an irregular occurrence whereby Cpl. Oblander went out and became inebriated. (Tr. pp. 251-252, Volume II).

15. Sheriff Meneley testified that he recently found out that Cpl. Oblander had previously been fired for getting a DUI and was later rehired. Sheriff Meneley testified that since he did not know about Cpl. Oblander's previous DUI, he did not know he was putting Cpl. Oblander in danger by assigning him duties that included drinking in bars. (Tr. p. 255, Volume II).

16. Sheriff Meneley testified that his opinion on why Detective Holladay, Detective Jaramillo, and Deputy Blume have provided the testimony they have provided is because all three are disgruntled about being "kicked out of the unit for not doing their job." (Tr. p. 256, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley further testified that these three officers were "notorious for mishandling evidence." (Tr. p. 256, Volume II). Sheriff Meneley testified that he pulled Detective Jaramillo and Deputy Blume out of the Federal Task Force long before he kicked them out of the narcotics division because he did not feel that the Department was getting their money's worth over there. (Tr. p. 258, Volume II).

17. Sheriff Meneley testified that he visited Deputy Oblander at Valley Hope on three occasions, twice with others, and once by himself. Sheriff Meneley further testified that he had a meeting with Deputy Oblander and Deputy Oblander's counselor. Sheriff Meneley testified that at this meeting they discussed what occurred in treatment, reminisced about when he had been in treatment, he offered to be a sponsor when Deputy Oblander came back to work, he expressed concern about Deputy Oblander coming back in that he was willing to give him a second chance, but that Deputy Oblander would not be going back to Narcotics, Deputy Oblander would need to go back to Warrants. (Tr. pp. 235-237, Volume III).

18. Sheriff Meneley testified that individuals that would be considered Deputy Oblander's "boss" would be himself, Undersheriff Huffmier, Major Ken Pierce, Capt. Lovelace, and James Honn. However, Sheriff Meneley also testified that the only individual who would have had the authority to transfer Deputy Oblander to Warrants would have been him. (Tr. pp. 237-239, Volume III).

19. Sheriff Meneley testified that he did not recall anything being mentioned about confidentiality during this meeting with Deputy Oblander and the Deputy's Counselor. (Tr. p. 239, Volume III).

20. Sheriff Meneley testified that he did not recall either himself or Deputy Oblander or the Counselor making any reference to the Sheriff being concerned about the possibility that Deputy Oblander would be tempted to start using cocaine again if Deputy Oblander was to be placed back in undercover work. (Tr. p. 240, Volume III).

21. Sheriff Meneley testified that prior to the release of Timothy Oblander's press release on March 1, 1999, he had no knowledge regarding Deputy Oblander's use of cocaine during the time he was working for the Sheriff's Department. (Tr. pp. 241-242, Volume III).

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Agent Richard Lee

1. Agent Lee was a captain with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department until July 1994 and he supervised personnel assigned to the Fugitive Warrants division, the Civil Process division, and the Communications unit. Agent Lee supervised both Frank Good and Timothy Oblander (Tr. p. 5, Volume III).

2. Agent Lee testified that he had a phone conversation with Defense counsel the night before this hearing (2/23/99) and had indicated that based upon Frank Good's testimony on the prior day, he wished to testify for either the prosecution or the defense. (Tr. p. 6, Volume III).

3. Agent Lee made the decision to temporarily separate Frank Good and Tim Oblander based on information Agent Lee had received concerning the quality of work product being produced by Frank Good and Tim Oblander. (Tr. pp. 6-7, Volume III).

4. Agent Lee testified that the alleged "lie" that Frank Good testified about was the representation that Frank Good and Tim Oblander would be reunited after a short separation. Agent Lee testified that both of these officers called in sick stating they were too stressed out and that they were not emotionally prepared to go to work. Agent Lee further testified that when they attempted to come back to work, Agent Lee informed them that they must undergo a psychological evaluation. Based upon the psychological report, Agent Lee decided to keep Frank Good and Tim Oblander separated. The psychological evaluations indicated that Officers Good and Oblander had an unhealthy relationship and it would not be in their best interest or the interest of the agency for them to be reassigned together again. Officer Good was described as the stronger of the two personalities and was described to Agent Lee as an enabler. Officer Oblander was described as a follower, the weaker of the two with respect to personality and that having the two together could lead to problems. (Tr. pp. 7-10, Volume III).

5. Agent Lee testified that although Agent Robert had looked through Officer Good's and Officer Oblander's personnel files and there was nothing in that file, it would have been the general practice at that time to put the psychological evaluations in the file. (Tr. pp. 9-10, Volume III).

6. Agent Lee testified that when he was originally asked to come forward, he had declined. Agent Lee also testified that upon thinking about friends and fellow officers who had given it all and Agent Lee felt that their names had been tarnished by what has transpired in this case. (Tr. pp. 10-11, Volume III).

Detective Michael Ramirez

1. Detective Ramirez is a retired Detective with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. Detective Ramirez' service with the department ended on June 19, 1998. (Tr. p. 37, Volume III).

2. Detective Ramirez was assigned to investigate the theft of some cocaine that was taken from a file cabinet in the vault room of the Sheriff's department. This investigation will be referred to as the Caldwell investigation or the internal affairs (IA) investigation of 1994, since it spanned from July 20, 1994 through August of 1994. During this investigation, Detective Ramirez administered polygraph examinations to Detective Holladay, J.D. Sparkman, and Ernie Banks, an employee for Cardinal Cleaning. All three of these individuals' results indicated that they had given truthful responses, which cleared them from further investigation. (Tr. pp. 38-40, Volume III).

3. Detective Ramirez testified that he and Detective Holladay went to the actual file cabinet that the missing cocaine was taken out of and Detective Holladay demonstrated how the file cabinet drawer could be opened an inch to an inch and a half and they removed an actual sack out of the drawer. Detective Ramirez further testified that Sheriff Meneley's statement that a 350 pound man could not budge the cabinet was inaccurate. (Tr. pp. 40-41, Volume III).

4. Detective Ramirez testified that he was interviewed by the KBI regarding the Caldwell investigation and the KBI asked him who he thought was responsible for the missing cocaine. Detective Ramirez testified that he had told the KBI that after he had concluded the IA investigation, he had received additional information, and that at that time, he indicated to the KBI that he believed Tim Oblander was responsible for the missing cocaine. (Tr. p. 42, Volume III).

5. Detective Ramirez testified that he was called into Capt. Roger Lovelace's office and was informed that Capt. Lovelace wanted him to conduct some follow-up investigation on a case that involved missing drugs, and so Detective Ramirez launched another IA investigation in August of 1996. Detective Ramirez testified that out of the cases that had turned up missing, Frank Good had either signed, collected or taken those particular drugs either to the property room or the KBI for analysis. This indicated to Detective Ramirez that Officer Good might be a suspect (Tr. pp. 45-47, Volume III).

6. Detective Ramirez testified that he brought the concern about Officer Good being involved to Capt. Lovelace's attention and he left Capt. Lovelace with the advice that he thought Officer Good should take a polygraph test to clear Officer Good. Detective Ramirez testified that Capt. Lovelace said that he would discuss it with Sheriff Meneley and they would determine whether or not this would be done. Detective Ramirez further testified that the case was placed on inactive status at that point and was never reopened. (Tr. p. 51, Volume III).

7. Detective Ramirez testified that although it was his investigation, he could not go ahead and determine that a polygraph examination should be administered to Officer Good. Detective Ramirez testified that when he is dealing with the administration, they have the final say as to what he may or may not do, and that he had been told a lot of times that there were things that the administration did not want him to do. (Tr. pp. 56-57, Volume III).

Deputy Dave Reser

1. Deputy Reser is employed by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, Special Services unit and his duties include working burglaries and assisting in narcotics investigations. (Tr. p. 9, Volume III).

2. Deputy Reser testified that he was subpoenaed to bring some files to the Court's chambers and some of the files had narcotics evidence inside the files. The file was numbered 94-53 and was one of Detective Holladay's files. The next file was numbered 90-055 and had what appeared to be marijuana inside the file and was collected by Detective Jaramillo. The next file was numbered 90-050, was signed over to Detective Jaramillo, and the custody sheet indicates that the charge was possession of cocaine, however, Deputy Reser could not locate an offense report. Another file numbered 90-048 contained methamphetamine in the file and listed deputies as Detectives Jaramillo and Holladay, with Detective Jaramillo listed as the sole person on the evidence custody sheet. (Tr. pp. 9-15, Volume III).

3. Deputy Reser testified that Sheriff Meneley ordered a self-audit to be performed on the property room in order to ascertain whether there were other cases missing narcotics. Deputy Reser testified that this was ordered to be started before the Sheriff brought in the consultant from New York to analyze the state of the property room. (Tr. pp. 20-22, Volume III).

Lieutenant James Honn

1. Lieutenant Honn has been a supervisor within the Sheriff's Department since 1989 and he participates in the process of evaluating the employees under his supervision. (Tr. p. 29, Volume III).

2. Lieutenant Honn testified that in the course of the evaluations that he completed he evaluated Dan Jaramillo, Phil Blume, and Scott Holladay. Lieutenant Honn testified that he never found the work of any of these three officers to be "sloppy." Lieutenant Honn further testified that he had no knowledge of any of these three officers leaving evidence "sitting around" and as their supervisor, if this type of conduct was going on, he would have known. (Tr. pp. 35-36, Volume III).

3. Lieutenant Honn testified that on the evaluation sheets that he signed and completed, a score of 75 would be average, 75-90 would be above average, and anything over 90 would be above and beyond an excellent. Lieutenant Honn opined that a rate of average becomes sub-average when it falls below 70, although the guidelines say that anything below 60 and above 90 needs to have written documentation on it. (Tr. pp. 39-40, Volume III).

Richard Warrington

1. Richard Warrington is a crime scene consultant for the Lynn Peavey Company in Lenexa, Kansas and is a retired Sergeant from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. Sgt. Warrington was assigned to the property room as the supervising sergeant for not quite 20 years. (Tr. p. 95, Volume III).

2. Sgt. Warrington testified that the evidence lockers that evidence was kept in were basically file drawers that had a hasp padlock on them. (Tr. pp. 97-98, Volume III). Sgt. Warrington testified that he attempted to open one of the evidence locker drawers in the presence of Sheriff Meneley to see if the drawer could be opened enough to get his hand in there to remove evidence, and upon such attempt, he could only open the drawer about one inch to an inch and a half. Within a short period of time, Sgt. Warrington repeated this demonstration for Detective Ramirez (Tr. pp. 110-111, Volume III). Sgt. Warrington testified that he did not recall whether he was present when Detective Holladay was present and the demonstration was done. (Tr. p. 112, Volume III). These lockers were later relocated to the dispatch area where there were people around 24 hours a day. (Tr. pp. 106-108, Volume III).

3. Sgt. Warrington testified that in 1994, Officer Sparkman brought it to his attention that he went to pick up some evidence for trial, and there was some cocaine missing out the bag. (Tr. p. 98, Volume III). Sgt. Warrington testified that he reported this up through the chain of command and later had conversations with KBI Agents Vick and Robert during the KBI's investigation. (Tr. pp. 103-104, Volume III). Sgt. Warrington testified that in December 1995, Teri Buck, the secretary of the property room, brought it to his attention that .44 grams of white rock substance was missing from a series of three cases. All three cases (95-04479; 95-05338; 95-06813) involved the sale of cocaine and Frank Good was the officer that brought the evidence to the property room. (Tr. pp. 116-123, Volume III). Sgt. Warrington testified that in March 1996, Ken Smith had received a subpoena for a large sale of cocaine case (Yousif) with numerous buys to go to court on April 1st and the initial buy (1 gram of white rock substance) was missing. (Tr. pp. 127-129, Volume III).

4. Sgt. Warrington testified that Officers coming to look at evidence kept in the property room were required to sign in, and most times, did not even enter the bin area, but that the property room officers would bring the particular bins or items up to view in the office. However, Sgt. Warrington also testified that there was some question brought up several times about people coming in that were not signing in and signs were put that everybody had to sign in as they came in. (Tr. pp. 123-125, Volume III).

5. Sgt. Warrington testified that the property room at Forbes Field was a warehouse setting that had a thermostat set at a constant temperature, although he did not know exactly what temperature it was set at. Sgt. Warrington testified that it got warm in the summertime, but nothing extreme. (Tr. pp. 141-142, Volume III).

6. Sgt. Warrington testified that as a result of not being able to find the cocaine missing from Case No. 95-17552, and after notifying the Sheriff and Undersheriff, he initiated an inventory of the property room. (Tr. pp. 146-147, Volume III). This inventory consisted of checking a printout by bin and case number and matching that against what was actually contained in each box. No reweighing of evidence took place. (Tr. pp. 148-150, Volume III).

7. Sgt. Warrington testified that he did not put in written form the results of the completion of the inventory nor did he indicate in a report to whom he reported the results. Sgt. Warrington testified that he informed Sheriff Meneley, KBI Agent Robert, and KBI Agent Vick as to what evidence was missing and what evidence had been found. Despite Sgt. Warrington's failure to draft a report, the KBI Agents made a report of being notified by Sgt. Warrington and what was said. (Tr. pp. 161-162, Volume III).

8. Sgt. Warrington testified that upon finding some evidence missing, he requested a meeting with Capt. Lovelace, and then with Sheriff Meneley and Undersheriff Huffmier. Sgt. Warrington testified that at approximately 3 p.m. on April 1, 1996, he met with Major Pierce, Undersheriff Huffmier and Sheriff Meneley in Sheriff Meneley's office. Sgt. Warrington testified that he brought the subject of missing evidence to these individuals' attention at this meeting with respect to three cases, and the fourth case (95-08071) was not discovered to be missing until the following day. Sgt. Warrington testified that there was no confusion as to whether or not Sheriff Meneley would have known that an inventory was being conducted. (Tr. pp. 162-165, Volume III).

9. Sgt. Warrington testified that he did not agree with J.D. Sparkman's testimony regarding people hardly ever signing in and if they happened to come at a time when Sparkman was in the bathroom, they had free reign to go in and get whatever they wanted. Sgt. Warrington denied any such practices on his shift (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). (Tr. pp. 174-177, Volume III). However, Sgt. Warrington testified as to the layout of the property room (Tr. pp. 186-190, Volume III), and further testified that if he happened to be in the lab testing, and someone came in to use the restroom, he would not have been able to see them. (Tr. p. 198, Volume III).

10. In response to hearing Detective Blume's testimony about being told by Sheriff Meneley that seals were removed on evidence bags, foreign substances were substituted, and new seals were affixed, Sgt. Warrington testified that the seals that he saw did not appear to have been compromised. Sgt. Warrington further testified that if the seals had been completely removed with new seals put on, he would not have been able to tell if that was the original or a replacement seal. (Tr. pp. 178-179, Volume III).

11. Sgt. Warrington testified that there was an instance in which Deputy Oblander had checked out some drugs for the purposes of dog training, and the drugs returned were far less than expected or came up short. The drugs were short 19.6 grams of marijuana, 1.8 grams of methamphetamine and 1.5 grams of cocaine. Sgt. Warrington testified that he instructed Deputy Oblander to file a report referencing this shortage, and Sgt. Warrington testified that he does not recall ever receiving that report. (Tr. p. 180, Volume III).

Undersheriff William Huffmier

1. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that he has been the Undersheriff of Shawnee County (second in command) since June 5, 1995. Undersheriff Huffmier also testified that anything that has major significance would come through him, then to the Sheriff. (Tr. p. 199, Volume III).

2. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that he has never been briefed on the issues surrounding the 1994 (Caldwell) internal affairs investigation. (Tr. p. 200, Volume III).

3. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that he had heard about Deputy Oblander's disappearance and that Deputy Oblander was in Valley Hope for alcohol treatment from Sheriff Meneley. (Tr. pp. 201-202, Volume III).

4. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that Sgt. Warrington notified him that they needed to have a meeting regarding missing evidence. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that at this meeting, Sheriff Meneley told Sgt. Warrington that he wanted a complete inventory of the property room. (Tr. pp. 203-204, Volume III).

5. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that he does not have intimate knowledge of the 1994 internal affairs investigation, Tim Oblander's disappearance or the 1996 internal affairs investigation. (Tr. p. 207, Volume III).

6. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that Sheriff Meneley made him aware that Detective Ramirez wanted to have Frank Good take a polygraph test back in December of 1996. Undersheriff Huffmier further testified that the Sheriff would be the only individual with the authority to tell Detective Ramirez whether or not to administer a polygraph examination to Frank Good. (Tr. pp. 210-211, Volume III).

7. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that Sheriff Meneley initiated an inventory in either late 1998, or early 1999, in response to this case because the Sheriff "did not want any more surprises" regarding missing evidence. (Tr. pp. 212-214, Volume III).

8. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that after he read the KBI report approximately a week or so before this testimony, he had Detective Holladay come in to attempt to re-enact the opening of the file cabinet and attempting to remove something from the drawer when it was locked. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that this was done in response to a meeting he had with Sheriff Meneley where he told Sheriff Meneley that he did not see how it was possible for someone to remove anything out of that file cabinet without tearing the paper sack, and Sheriff Meneley suggested that he have Detective Holladay come over, show him how things were packed and see if it could be done. Undersheriff Huffmier testified that he directed Sgt. Busey make 12 paper folds and placed each in a plastic bag and a road map (since a road map of Texas was part of the evidence in the paper sack in the Caldwell case) and put these items in a paper sack and put the bag in the drawer and locked it with the original lock that was on the cabinet at the time. Undersheriff Huffmier further testified that in performing this demonstration, Detective Holladay was able to open the drawer, get his hand down in the drawer, and remove the bag, however when he did, Detective Holladay tore the paper sack. (Tr. pp. 219-231, Volume III).

Sergeant Scott Baker

1. Sgt. Baker testified that he is a Sergeant for the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and has been employed by that department for 19 years. (Tr. p. 247, Volume III).

2. Sgt. Baker testified that he was one of the officers that joined the search party in May 1995 that was assembled to attempt to locate Deputy Oblander when he was "missing." Sgt. Baker testified that Deputy Oblander was located before anybody actually went out and conducted the search. (Tr. pp. 247-248, Volume III).

3. Sgt. Baker testified that on that May event he came to be in the presence of Officer Oblander at the Silver Lake, Kansas police department. Sgt. Baker testified that at the time he arrived in the mid to late afternoon, Deputy Gowan was with Deputy Oblander. Sgt. Baker testified that upon observing Deputy Oblander, it appeared to him that Deputy Oblander had "definitely been out all night," his clothes were disarrayed, his hair was messed up, his eyes were bloodshot, and he held his head in his lap. Sgt. Baker testified that he also noticed the odor of alcohol about Deputy Oblander's person or breath, but Sgt. Baker did not recall any slurring of speech. (Tr. pp. 248-249, Volume III).

4. Sgt. Baker testified that he is Shawnee County Sheriff's Department's head trainer for training dogs to detect narcotics. Sgt. Baker testified that in training the dogs, real narcotics are used. Sgt. Baker testified that after a proper dog (one that has a high reward drive) is selected, the officer starts associating the dog's rewards with on of the three odors of narcotics (marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine). Sgt. Baker testified that this is accomplished by storing the rewards (toys and not food) with the narcotics so that they absorb some of the order. Sgt. Baker testified that in storing the toys with the narcotics, the sealed bags containing the narcotics do not need to be breached because enough odor will be absorbed by the toy even if the bag of narcotics is sealed. (Tr. pp. 253-255, Volume III).

5. Sgt. Baker testified that he has probably checked out narcotics for the purposes of training dogs hundreds of times, and of these hundreds of times, they rarely come back light in weight. Sgt. Baker testified that when drugs are checked in and he knows they are light in weight, he would write a report, and the officer returning the drugs should write a report. (Tr. p. 260, Volume III).

6. Sgt. Baker testified that he went to visit Tim Oblander at Valley Hope on one occasion, shortly after Tim Oblander had entered treatment, with Sheriff Meneley and Micki Brokaw, but Sgt. Baker did not recall Tim Oblander ever stating the reason for his treatment at Valley Hope other than "he had a problem." (Tr. pp. 262-264, Volume III).

7. Sgt. Baker testified that at the time he was interviewed by two KBI Agents, he was unaware that drugs were missing. (Tr. p. 264, Volume III).

Deputy Dave Gowan

1. Deputy Gowan testified that in 1995 he was employed by both the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and the Silver Lake Police Department. Deputy Gowan testified that he was notified by then Capt. Crane, a pilot with the Sheriff's Department, that he had spotted the vehicle that was associated with Deputy Oblander. Deputy Gowan testified that when he came upon Deputy Oblander's vehicle, he stopped approximately 30 to 40 feet behind Deputy Oblander's vehicle, which was parked somewhat in the middle of the road and not completely off to the right side, and announced himself over the intercom asking for Deputy Oblander to come out of the vehicle, since he had no idea of exactly what had been going on, other than that the Deputy was missing. Deputy Gowan testified that Deputy Oblander came out of the vehicle after the third time Deputy Gowan called Deputy Oblander. Deputy Gowan testified that upon getting out of the vehicle, Deputy Oblander waved as if to indicate that everything was alright. Deputy Gowan testified that he called Deputy Oblander back to his patrol car and was about three to four feet away from Deputy Oblander, and Deputy Gowan did not detect an odor of alcohol on Deputy Oblander. Deputy Gowan testified that Deputy Oblander said that he had been fighting with his wife, but Deputy Oblander mentioned nothing about alcohol or drug use. Deputy Gowan testified that he noticed that Deputy Oblander's eyes were bloodshot and puffy, and later at the Silver Lake Police Station, Deputy Oblander stated that he had been crying about the domestic dispute he had with his wife. Deputy Gowan testified that Deputy Oblander appeared like maybe he had slept in his clothing that night or that day sometime. (Tr. pp. 267-276, Volume III).

2. Deputy Gowan testified that when he found Deputy Oblander he wanted to make sure that Deputy Oblander was all right, but anything further than that he did not want to know. Deputy Gowan testified that he got the impression that there was more to the situation than just a domestic dispute between Deputy Oblander and his wife, but Deputy Gowan testified that he did not want to get involved. (Tr. pp. 276-278, Volume III).

Major Ken Pierce

1. Major Pierce testified that he has been employed by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department for nearly 30 years. Major Pierce testified that he is third in command of the Sheriff's Department, subordinated only by the Sheriff and the Undersheriff. Major Pierce testified that although this may be the organizational structure of the Department, it is not a strict hierarchy, and the chain of command is skirted at almost every level on occasion. (Tr. pp. 20-21, Volume VII).

2. Major Pierce testified that to his best recollection, it was Detective Holladay that notified him when the drugs first came up missing in 1994 and he took him back to show him the four drawer cabinet that had been used to store the drugs and the door was bowed somewhat. Major Pierce testified that this information reached the top of the chain of command. Major Pierce testified that it would not have been his responsibility to notify the District Attorney of the missing drugs, that it would have been the responsibility of either the person authorizing the internal affairs investigation or the officer conducting the internal affairs investigation. (Tr. pp. 22-23, Volume VII).

3. Major Pierce testified that he was not aware of Deputy Oblander's disappearance until after the fact, either later that day or the next day. (Tr. pp. 23-24, Volume VII).

4. Major Pierce testified that he recalled a meeting with Sheriff Meneley, Undersheriff Huffmier and Sgt. Warrington regarding three or four cases that had drug evidence missing from them, and Sgt. Warrington was subsequently directed by Sheriff Meneley to pursue Sgt. Warrington's inventory of the property room that Sgt. Warrington had already initiated. Major Pierce further testified that he was unaware that an internal affairs investigation had taken place between July 1996 and December 1996. (Tr. pp. 24-25, Volume VII).

5. Major Pierce testified that on or around January of 1995, he had lodged an objection to the expenditure of approximately $3,000 of Sheriff's Buy Fund money by Officer Oblander and Officer Good. Major Pierce testified that these two officers were directed to try to make some "bar cases" and the majority of the expenditures were for tips, bar tips, and bar expenses, but that he became concerned when he did not see the production of any cases from these expenditures. Major Pierce was careful to point out in his testimony that every dollar spent is not going to generate a case, and expenditures made in January might not develop into a case until May, but he still thought these expenditures were perhaps unwise. Major Pierce testified that the typical disbursement for total expenses in a month might be in the $800 to $1,200 range, so $3,000 was abnormally excessive. Major Pierce testified that the receipts that Officers Good and Oblander presented were hand-written receipts that the Officers generated themselves. (Tr. pp. 34-37, Volume VII).

6. Major Pierce testified that in 1996, around the time when the Sheriff's Department was talking about their move to the new law enforcement center, he erred in making the judgment that Bureau of Justice Administration records could be destroyed on cases in which the statute of limitations had run or the appeal process had concluded after a conviction. Major Pierce testified that upon finding out that this was an erroneous assumption or decision to make, he immediately canceled the order to have such records destroyed. (Tr. p. 31, Volume VII).

7. Major Pierce testified that in a staff meeting on February 24, 1999, Sheriff Meneley indicated that he expected that either that day or very soon, Tim Oblander would be turning in his resignation, although the Sheriff did not indicate his reason(s) for such expectation. (Tr. p. 29, Volume VII). Major Pierce testified that in a special meeting on February 26, 1999, Sheriff Meneley expressed his dissatisfaction in that he had given out the information about expecting Tim Oblander's resignation as a red herring to see if anyone would say anything or leak the information, and the Sheriff had found out that someone had in fact leaked the information. (Tr. p. 30, Volume VII).

Dr. John Growney

1. Dr. Growney is a licensed physician in the state of Kansas and practices in Atchison, Kansas. Dr. Growney used to be employed by Valley Hope Treatment Center in Atchison on a fee for service basis. Dr. Growney performed the initial history and physical admission to Valley Hope primarily concerned with the medical aspect of patient care. (Tr. pp. 44-48, Volume VII).

2. Dr. Growney testified that he first made contact with Tim Oblander on June 28, 1995, by conducting a medical history and physical examination for the purpose of determining whether there was a physical problem. Dr. Growney testified that the information that nursing personnel had gathered indicated Tim Oblander was "allergic to penicillin, cocaine addiction, deputy sheriff, good health, no significant injuries or operations." Dr. Growney further testified that in response to the question "Mr. Oblander, why are you here?", Tim Oblander informed him that he was smoking a gram and a half of cocaine per day. (Tr. pp. 51-54, Volume VII).

3. Dr. Growney testified that had alcohol been even a secondary problem, he more than likely would have indicated it on the sheet, and it was not indicated. Dr. Growney testified that in his opinion, a person who drinks 12 cans of beer a week, would not be considered a problem. (Tr. pp. 55-56, Volume VII).

4. Dr. Growney testified that he did not do any of the actual counseling with Tim Oblander, his only concern was the physical well-being with Tim Oblander. (Tr. p. 57, Volume VII).

5. Dr. Growney testified that he diagnosed cocaine addiction. Dr. Growney testified that had Tim Oblander indicated a desire for him to tell people it was only alcohol treatment that was needed, he would have indicated that in his notes. (Tr. p. 60-61, Volume VII).

Sergeant Mark Wanamaker

1. Sgt. Wanamaker is a sergeant with Patrol division of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, has been so employed for almost 25 years. (Tr. p. 63, Volume VII).

2. Sgt. Wanamaker testified that he had signed some personnel evaluations "under protest" simply because he was not the supervisor of those individuals and he had no knowledge of their performance. (Tr. pp. 65-71, Volume VII).

3. Sgt. Wanamaker testified that on or around July 24, 1996, Sgt. Warrington assigned him to investigate the fact that drugs were missing from the property room. Sgt. Wanamaker testified that his investigation ended, his results were inconclusive, but that he recommended to Capt. Lovelace that some polygraph examinations should be administered. (Tr. pp. 72-76, Volume VII). Sgt. Wanamaker recalled that the individuals he would have requested to take a polygraph were Frank Good and J.D. Sparkman. (Tr. p. 79, Volume VII). Sgt. Wanamaker testified that to the best of his knowledge, none of these polygraph examinations were administered. (Tr. pp. 72-76, Volume VII).

4. Sgt. Wanamaker testified that he was not aware of any reputation within the Sheriff's Department that Deputy Philip Blume, Detective Dan Jaramillo, or Detective Holladay were "notoriously sloppy in the handling of evidence." (Tr. pp. 77-78, Volume VII).

Captain Roger Lovelace

1. Capt. Lovelace is a retired Captain from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. During his 25 tenure with the Department, Capt. Lovelace had been promoted to the rank of Captain and had the duty of supervising the officers in the different divisions to which he was assigned. Amongst the divisions that Capt. Lovelace supervised were the Drug unit as well as Special Services. (Tr. pp. 80-82, Volume VII).

2. Capt. Lovelace testified that he was the immediate supervisor of Sgt. Warrington when Sgt. Warrington was in charge of the property room. Capt. Lovelace testified that Sgt. Warrington brought it to his attention that there was drug evidence missing from the property room and the two of them went to Sheriff' Meneley's office to inform the Sheriff. Capt. Lovelace testified that upon telling Sheriff Meneley this information, the Sheriff directed him to assign a detective to investigate the matter. (Tr. pp. 82-84, Volume VII).

3. Capt. Lovelace testified that in 1996, Sgt. Wanamaker came to him and told him that Sgt. Wanamaker wanted to have Frank Good take a polygraph examination, and later, Detective Ramirez related to him that the cases that were missing were Frank Good's cases. Capt. Lovelace testified that since the Sheriff supervised internal affairs investigations, as a Captain, he did not give immediate authorization to Detective Ramirez to administer a polygraph examination to Frank Good, but rather, he went to inform Sheriff Meneley about the request that day. Capt. Lovelace testified that Sheriff Meneley told Capt. Lovelace that he would talk to Detective Ramirez. (Tr. pp. 90-93, Volume VII).

4. Capt. Lovelace testified that he supervised Deputy Philip Blume, Detective Dan Jaramillo, and Detective Scott Holladay and at no time did Capt. Lovelace know any of these officers to be notoriously sloppy in the handling of evidence. Capt. Lovelace testified that Detective Holladay received some low evaluations when he was assigned to the Highway Interdiction Unit, which is a unit that profiles individuals on the highways for transporting narcotics. Capt. Lovelace testified that Detective Holladay received these low evaluations because his productivity as far as making cases was very low. Capt. Lovelace testified that there were a lot of times when Detective Holladay would catch people with small amounts of narcotics and not arrest them and turn the narcotics in to be destroyed, and that was not his job. (Tr. pp. 96-99, Volume VII).

5. Capt. Lovelace testified that he supervised Deputy Oblander and during the period between January 1995 and June 1995, Deputy Oblander's overall rating was 86.36 and that Capt. Lovelace, as the immediate rating supervisor, indicated that his quality of work was very good. Capt. Lovelace further testified that on the same evaluation sheet, it indicated that Deputy Oblander had taken quite a bit of sick leave. Capt. Lovelace testified that he was aware that Deputy Oblander had been absent from work for over five weeks, but that he did not know where he was or what he was doing. Upon being presented with the fact that Deputy Philip Blume received an evaluation below a 70 in the particular area of absences for missing two or three days, Capt. Lovelace testified that with the case of Deputy Oblander, missing five weeks from the department would be something that should have been noted in the evaluation. (Tr. pp. 105-108, Volume VII).

6. Testimony in this case has indicated that Deputy Oblander was in treatment at Valley Hope on July 1, 1995 (admitted June 27, 1995). However, Deputy Oblander's personnel evaluation for the period of July 1995 to December 1995 contained a notation stating: "usually on time, very little sick time usage." (Tr. p. 110, Volume VII).

Patricia Burkholder

1. Patty Burkholder is a legal assistant for the Shawnee County District Attorney's office and has been so employed for almost 12 years. Patty Burkholder testified that her duties include intaking a report from an investigative agency by suspect's name, victim's name, address, agency case numbers, agency that it came from, and then it is assigned an intake number. Ms. Burkholder further testified that the District Attorney's office intake number is separate and distinct from the particular agency's intake number. (Tr. p. 112-114, Volume VII).

2. Patty Burkholder testified that the cases with the following case numbers were never brought to the District Attorney's office for prosecution:

94-00048 94-00050 94-00053 94-00055

92-00034 95-17541 95-16526 95-08071

95-04479 95-05338

(Tr. pp. 114-117, Volume VII).

3. Patty Burkholder testified that case number 95-17552 (Yousif case) was brought to the District Attorney's office for prosecution, formal charges were filed, and the District Court case number 96-CR-480 was assigned. Sheriff's Department case numbers 95-17552, 95-17659, 96-332, 96-1394 and 96-1516 were represented in the complaint filed as 96-CR-480, but the Sheriff's Department case number 95-17541 was not represented by the District Court case numbered 96-CR-480. (Tr. pp. 118-121, Volume VII).

Robert Correll

1. Mr. Correll was a counselor at Valley Hope from 1990 to 1995. (Tr. p. 12, Volume VIII).

2. Mr. Correll testified that he himself is a recovering alcoholic and has been for six years. (Tr. p. 14, Volume VIII).

3. Mr. Correll testified that as an interventionist, his duties included facilitating people coming into treatment that do not want to seek treatment and working with families and try to convince the people that there is a need for them to seek treatment. Mr. Correll further testified that his duties also included facilitating people coming into treatment that are seeking treatment. (Tr. p. 14, Volume VIII). Mr. Correll also testified that his duties included working with primary patients (a patient that has come in and is assigned to you), conducting small groups, and giving lectures. (Tr. p. 16, Volume VIII).

4. Mr. Correll testified that he was not required to have a college degree for his position as a counselor. Mr. Correll testified that he received four months training at Valley Hope's central facility in Norton, Kansas. (Tr. pp. 14-15, Volume VIII).

5. Mr. Correll testified that he is a certified counselor within the Valley Hope system, but is not a certified counselor as defined by the State of Kansas. (Tr. p. 15, Volume VIII).

6. Mr. Correll testified that Deputy Oblander was assigned to him as a primary patient. Mr. Correll further testified that although he was a recovering alcoholic, and Deputy Oblander suffered from cocaine dependence, his view, as well as the view of Valley Hope as the treatment facility, was that with both addictions, the disease process and the recovery process are remarkably the same. (Tr. p. 20, Volume VIII).

7. Mr. Correll testified that prior to his initial interview of Timothy Oblander on June 28, 1999, he would not have read Tim Oblander's records from admission to Valley Hope, but he would have known generalities about Mr. Oblander as provided by the assistant program director. (Tr. pp. 22-23, Volume VIII).

8. Mr. Correll testified that the statements contained in his notes that said "he [Deputy Oblander] started using cocaine at age 33; he had been using for the past year and a half; he mainly used crack cocaine, one half ounce--one half gram to a gram, one or two times per week" were statements that Deputy Oblander made to him. (Tr. pp. 26-27, Volume VIII).

9. Mr. Correll testified that both quotes "I have not been addicted for a long period so I have not tried cutting down but I'll quit with help, I can't do it by myself" and "I have not spent any money on drugs" were statements made by Timothy Oblander. (Tr. p. 34, Volume VIII).

10. Mr. Correll testified that a "back to work session" involves trying to get the employer to come to the treatment facility and allow the employer and the patient to talk about things that are necessary for them to come back to work and also any help that the employer might be able to give the patient in regards to recovery. (Tr. pp. 38, Volume VIII). Mr. Correll further testified that a back to work session was held with himself, Mr. Oblander, and Sheriff Meneley being present. (Tr. pp. 42-43, Volume VIII).

11. Mr. Correll testified that by looking at other notes, rather than any specific recollection of the back to work session, Timothy Oblander indicated that he [Oblander] did not feel that his job was in jeopardy. (Tr. p. 42, Volume VIII).

12. Mr. Correll testified that he could not specifically recall what was meant by his note that stated the boss "expressed to Tim how far he was out on a limb" because it could be interpreted one of two ways, either Sheriff Meneley or Tim Oblander was the party "out on a limb." (Tr. p. 43, Volume VIII).

13. Mr. Correll testified that had Mr. Oblander's boss expressed the emotion of surprise or shock when they talked about Mr. Oblander's drug use and addiction, he would have indicated that in his notes, and there is no such indication made. (Tr. pp. 46, Volume VIII).

14. Mr. Correll testified that he does not recall Mr. Oblander asking him to lie to his boss and say that he was being treated for alcohol dependence rather than cocaine dependence. Mr. Correll further testified that in any event, had Mr. Oblander asked him to lie about what he was receiving treatment for, Mr. Correll would have refused because it goes completely against the treatment process and the 12-step program. (Tr. pp. 46-47, Volume VIII).

15. Mr. Correll testified that he made a recommendation in the discharge summary that Mr. Oblander attend a minimum of three NA meetings per week. Mr. Correll testified that the recommendation could have been NA and AA, but that is not what he recommended. (Tr. p. 51, Volume VIII).

The Court has had the opportunity to observe numerous witnesses give conflicting accounts of certain activities during this period of time. In weighing all the evidence, including the corroborating testimony and evidence of the matters in conflict and based upon the testimony and evidence from the entire record, the Court's previous rulings and the State and Defendant's written submissions, the Court finds and concludes:

I. Drugs seized, held, tested, weighed, maintained or otherwise utilized as evidence by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department during the time period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1996 are irreparably contaminated and tainted. The State has failed to demonstrate with any degree of certainty the integrity of this evidence.

In making this finding the Court additionally finds and concludes:

1. Former Sheriff's Deputy Timothy Oblander, during this period of time was using cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. He acquired these drugs from evidence he handled or had access to as a Shawnee County Sheriff's Narcotics officer.

2. Drug Evidence utilized for personal use was acquired by the following means -

a: Using "buy money", purchasing drugs and keeping a portion for personal use prior to weighing and processing for evidence purposes.

b: At or before preparation as evidence, keeping a portion of the drugs for personal use and substituting with a similar foreign substance.

c: After evidence was processed, taking partial portions while the drug evidence was still being held at the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department.

d: Removing drug evidence that was placed in the Sheriff's Department Forbes Field property room.

e: Personally consuming drugs specified for use in K-9 (dog) training.

3. Oblander's partner, Sgt. Frank Good, knew of this behavior and was an enabler in Oblander's procuring drugs and in hiding this activity.

4. At least from June 1995 (when Oblander was admitted to Valley Hope for drug treatment) Sheriff Dave Meneley knew of the use of cocaine and other drugs and thereafter became personally involved in covering up this activity.

5. The Sheriff, through calculated investigative indifference and purposeful personnel promotions, transfers and demotions attempted to keep this illegal activity secret within his department. The Sheriff rewarded those who blindly followed this mandate of secrecy and punished those who cooperated with truthful recollection of events.

6. The practices referred in paragraph #5 were prevalent throughout the relevant period of time, specifically:

a: Cpl. Tim Oblander received a promotion in spite of the aforementioned known behavior and conduct.

b: Sgt. Frank Good received a promotion in spite of his known participation in this corruption.

c: Det. Scott Holladay, who cooperated with all the investigations involving this matter and has been truthful and forthright in his recollection of events, has been transferred to an assignment which by all accounts under utilizes his capabilities and skills.

d: Deputy Phil Blume, who cooperated with all the investigations involving this matter and has been truthful and forthright in his recollection of events, has been transferred to an assignment which by all accounts under utilizes his capabilities and skills.

e: Det. Dan Jaramillo, who cooperated with all the investigations involving this matter and has been truthful and forthright in his recollection of events, has been transferred to an assignment which by all accounts under utilizes his capabilities and skills.

f: Since testifying in this proceeding, Major Ken Pierce has been stripped of most of his administrative responsibilities.

7. The Sheriff and others in his department were indifferent and silent in cases being forwarded for prosecution in which they knew evidence had been tampered with and in some cases non-existent.

8. The environment described in paragraphs #5, #6, and the indifference described in #7 is still pervasive within the Sheriff's Department to this day.

9. Others are undoubtedly involved in evidence tampering. Drug evidence continued to disappear for at least six months after Tim Oblander completed drug treatment and was transferred from his undercover narcotics duties in August 1995. This includes evidence from cases where the drug evidence was not acquired and processed until January and February 1996.

10. Conditions at the Sheriff's Department Forbes Field property room were insecure and in complete disarray. During this time period, it was not unusual for drugs to be lost or misplaced and later found in areas that had already been searched or in areas where evidence was never stored. In some cases, drug evidence disappeared altogether and was never located.

11. The two scales utilized by the Sheriff's Department to weigh drug evidence were not timely certified to ensure their accuracy. The Fisher scale had not been certified since 1992 and the Sartorius scale since 1995. Ultimately, criminal charges were filed in "weight sensitive" drug crimes from results based on the use of these scales.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss which claims that the chain of custody of the alleged evidence in this case cannot be sufficiently established due to outrageous governmental conduct occurring within and perpetrated by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. Defendant argues that due to this outrageous governmental conduct, the Court will be unable to ensure Defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections 10 and 18 of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights. The State contends that the arguments made by Defendant only bear on the weight the trier of fact would give the evidence, if at all, and does not bear upon its admissibility.

Generally, the Defendant has the burden of proof for a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3208. However, the State bears the burden of proof in the context of a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence. K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Voit, 207 Kan. 635, 639, 485 P.2d 1306 (1971); State v. Sumner, 210 Kan. 802, 804, 504 P.2d 239 (1972)(holding that the movant is required to show that the search and seizure was unlawful, that the movant was personally aggrieved and that the movant's rights were prejudiced).

Defendant's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial

Defendants in criminal prosecutions are afforded a right to a fair trial by the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955), the Court held:

"A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. . . . [O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. . . ."

Id. at 136. A finding of actual prejudice is not a sine qua non for a violation of due process. The Court has found a due process violation in cases not involving actual prejudice. Turner v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546 (1965); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792 (1963); White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050 (1963). If the proceeding would render the defendant's fair trial right "inherently suspect" then due process is lacking. Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 540, 544, 85 S.Ct. 1628 (1965). The test is whether allowing the proceedings would be so "inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to the right to a fair trial." Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340 (1986). The facts of this case present such a threat. The crime and corruption that occurred within the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and has been allowed to continue to exist by the willful blindness, if not outright support, of several supervisory and higher echelon employees of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, including the Sheriff himself, precludes the Defendant from receiving the fair trial that he is guaranteed by law. This is particularly true with the crimes that Defendant is alleged to have committed in this case. When the charged crime is possession of a controlled substance, the evidence (the substance) becomes the crime. It is untenable to allow prosecution to be maintained for the possession of a substance when the substance itself is so suspect that it cannot be reasonably ascertained that the evidence is what it purports to be. Likewise, the failure to pay drug tax allegation hinges upon the identity and the integrity of the evidence. The penalty for failure to pay drug tax varies depending on the amount (weight) of the drug that was seized. In the present case, the Defendant is accused of failing to pay drug tax, but yet the weight of the evidence is absolutely uncertain. The scales utilized to determine the weight were not timely certified to ensure accuracy. Not only are there conflicting weights at different times, but considering the testimony regarding the substitution of foreign substances in narcotics cases, any evidence seized and/or stored during that period of time ('94-'96) is inherently suspect. Without confirmation that the evidence seized in this case is what it purports to be, that the weight is what it purports to be, allowing this prosecution to continue would be so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to the Defendant's right to a fair trial.

"The same result obtains [denial of due process] when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963)[citing Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173 (1959)]. It is curious to note that the District Attorney's Office has maintained this prosecution after discovering the vast amount of evidence that was brought out through the numerous hearings, and yet, it so readily admits that crime and corruption is pervasive throughout the Sheriff's Department and this case.

"The principle of Mooney v. Holohan is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused criminal is treated unfairly."

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963).

When criminal evidence is lost or destroyed, the court must protect a complex of interests, some conflicting. Our principal concern is to provide the accused an opportunity to produce and examine all relevant evidence, to insure a fair trial. . . . The significant interest in such cases is to avoid the impairment of judicial integrity that would occur if the prosecution were allowed to manipulate court process, and protective rulings or sanctions may be required both to insure a fair trial in a specific case and to deter future violations.

U.S. v. Loud Hawk, 628 F.2d 1139, (9th Cir. 1979). Court proceedings are held for the solemn purpose of endeavoring to ascertain the truth, which is the sine qua non of a fair trial. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 106 S.Ct. 1340 (1986). The Court recognizes the perilous position in which the State has been placed and lauds the forthright and candid assessment of the conditions in the Sheriff's Department. However, once the District Attorney's Office discovered and acknowledged the extent of the overall corruption to be within the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department (whether that was before, during, or after the hearings in this case), and the impact that such practices have had, and continue to have on the narcotics cases from the three-year time period in question ('94-'96), this case should have been dismissed and a formal inquisition launched.

Prosecutors are ethically bound to do justice. The prosecuting attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629 (1935). Justice cannot be done by maintaining prosecution in this case. To do so would imperil the Defendant's right to a fair trial and vitiate the system by condoning the unpalatable concept that illegal actions by law enforcement personnel are allowed to exist. Therefore, the Court finds that to allow the prosecution of this case to continue would violate the Defendant's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Weight v. Admissibility

The State argues that any breaks in the chain of custody in the present case should bear upon the evidence's weight rather than its admissibility as provided in State v. Tillman, 208 Kan. 954, 494 P.2d 1178 (1972). The general rule regarding chain of custody issues is stated in Tillman:

"The rule is that a party who offers an object into evidence must show that it is reasonably certain that there have been no material alterations of the object since it was first taken into custody. It is not necessary, however, that the object offered into evidence should have been kept continuously under lock-and-key or continuously sealed up. The preliminary proof of the identity of the object and that the same has not been improperly tampered with, is first to be determined by the trial court. It is not necessary that all possibility of its being tampered with should be excluded. [Citation omitted.] The ultimate question of the sufficiency of the proof is, of course, for the jury to determine."

Id. at 958-959 (Emphasis added). The authorities cited in the State's response other than Tillman are of little assistance in this case due to factual dissimilarities. State v. Baker, 219 Kan. 854, 549 P.2d 911 (1976)(recognizing that the State met the Tillman test of reasonable certainty that no material alteration of the objects occurred and stated that while the state's chain of custody showing cannot be termed commendable, it is adequate to meet the test); State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 573 P.2d 982 (1977)(the Court allowing the introduction of evidence collected as part of a "rape kit" despite the break in the chain of custody because the possibility that the evidence was tampered with was remote and any deficiency in the chain of custody went to the exhibit's weight rather than admissibility); State v. McGhee, 226 Kan. 698, 602 P.2d 1339 (1979); State v. Bright, 229 Kan. 185, 623 P.2d 917 (1981) (finding no error in admitting the evidence because the only break in the chain was the transfer of the exhibit from the Metro Squad drug safe to the safe at the testing lab; the packet was heavily sealed, marked, initialed and dated, fully identified, and no evidence of tampering existed). The State seems to have focused more on the end result of these cases than on the cases' applicability to the facts at issue. While the Tillman rule is binding precedent that this Court must heed, a close review of the facts in this case indicates that the rule is not satisfied on many levels. Moreover, as defense counsel astutely points out, defendant's case is more than a mere chain of custody problem. The case before the Court presents issues not only as to the chain of custody but also raises concerns regarding the identity and integrity of the evidence.

First, the State has failed to show that it is reasonably certain that there have been no material alterations of the evidence since it was first taken into custody. Testimony provided by several witnesses in this case described the sloppy handling of evidence coupled with the general lack of security and professionalism in the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department's property storage facility. Testimony further provided that it was not unusual for drugs to be misplaced and later found in areas that had already been searched or in areas where evidence was never stored. Deputy Oblander's records from Valley Hope indicated that Deputy Oblander had stolen drug evidence from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department property storage facility for personal consumption and in some cases, had substituted foreign substances in place of some of the drugs he had stolen. Although Defendant has not shown that Deputy Oblander, or anyone else, has specifically tampered with the evidence offered against him, he is not required to do so. At the preliminary hearing, Items Nos. 10, 11, and 12 weighed less. This reduction in weight causes speculation as to the authenticity and integrity of both the evidence itself and the process. The reduction in weight, coupled with the testimony concerning the tampering of evidence, lack of security of the storage facility, and general lack of professionalism practiced by some of the Sheriff's Deputies, provides the basis on which to conclude that the rule enunciated in Tillman cannot be satisfied.

The State introduced testimony from KBI Chemist Carl Anderson regarding the possibility of the reduction in weight of the marijuana seized in this case being due to the natural drying of the vegetation over the 4 year period during which it was stored. Mr. Anderson based his testimony on general approximations, specific only to vegetation and not narrowed to marijuana. Mr. Anderson testified that the maximum amount of moisture that vegetation can contain before spoilage would be 20 to 25 percent by weight. Mr. Anderson further testified that under ambient conditions, and without the use of an oven or forced heat, vegetation may dry or lose 10 to 15 percent moisture by weight. Based on these approximations, Mr. Anderson testified that an acceptable range of shrinkage by drying would be five to 15 percent moisture by weight, and the losses in this case are within that range.

While this testimony helped the Court understand what factors might affect the marijuana seized in this case, it is inconclusive as to a determination of whether natural drying is a valid explanation, since the initial moisture content of the marijuana seized in this case is unknown. In order for Mr. Anderson to testify that the amounts of shrinkage in the items of evidence in this case were within the "acceptable" range, he had to rely on a number of generous approximations. First, Mr. Anderson was told to assume that 4/10 of a gram of marijuana was destroyed in testing each sample. Other testimony provided by individuals who actually performed the testing could not indicate the weight of the sample with any degree of certainty, but rather, they testified it was a "small pinch" about the size of "three match heads." Second, Mr. Anderson was trying to develop a maximum range, so he assumed for the high end of the range that the vegetation was at or close to the point of spoilage. It is highly improbable that in this case, the marijuana in question was at, or even remotely close to, the point of spoilage, and thus contained the maximum amount of moisture. The seizing officer testified that the evidence was dry or semi-dry; it was not green, growing vegetation, and that it had been dried somewhat. The marijuana had been picked from the stalks, it had been compressed in some form or another, and was a greenish brownish vegetation. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the suspect marijuana that was compressed and prepared for distribution and sale would be at or near the point of spoilage. Thus, the maximum end of the range of how much loss in weight shrinkage may account for is inflated based on the general assumptions given to Mr. Anderson. Finally, Mr. Anderson was also working on the assumption that the evidence in this case would have "dried" under ambient conditions, and without the assistance of an oven or other heating source. This assumption also helped develop the inflated upper end of the approximate range that the subject marijuana could have "dried out." Without a conclusive "natural" explanation, the evidence seized and stored in this case has decreased in weight, and thus, has been materially altered by some external force. Therefore, because the State cannot show that it is reasonably certain that there have been no material alterations of the evidence since it was first taken into custody, the first prong of the Tillman rule is not satisfied.

Second, under Tillman, the preliminary proof of the identity of the object and that the same has not been improperly tampered with, is first to be determined by the trial court. Tillman, 208 Kan. at 958-959. Once again, there has not been specific evidence introduced that links Deputy Oblander to any misdeeds regarding the evidence in this case. However, in considering both Deputy Oblander's statement regarding substituting foreign substances for drugs he had stolen, the lack of security to protect the evidence, and the irrebuttable fact that the evidence weighs less now than when it was first seized and tested, the identity of the object is highly suspect and the probability that the evidence has been improperly tampered with is high.

Finally, although the ultimate question of the sufficiency of the proof is for the jury to determine, the evidence or the "proof" does not reach the jury for such a determination if the trial court in the first instance cannot pass on its identity or whether it has been tampered with. As stated above, the identity of the evidence in this case cannot be adequately determined as evidenced by the various modes of illegal conduct occurring during this time period. The Court has also found that any evidence seized and/or stored by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office during the three year period in question is irreparably contaminated and tainted, and as such, it has been "improperly tampered with." Therefore, the evidence in this case does not pass the initial scrutiny of this Court, thus leaving no determination for a jury to make.

Outrageous Governmental Conduct

The findings of fact outline the various illegal and unprofessional practices of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, some of which still persist. Deputy Oblander's conduct of using evidence from narcotics crimes and from K-9 training aids for personal use, misappropriating government funds for the purchase of such narcotics, and replacing foreign substances in place of the stolen narcotics strikes a massive blow to the heart of the law enforcement system. This abuse of power not only violates the law, but it contradicts traditional notions of justice and obliterates any confidence held by the common citizen. To make matters worse, Sgt. Good not only had knowledge of Deputy Oblander's conduct, but actively participated in concealing Deputy Oblander's conduct. Sheriff Meneley has perpetrated perhaps the most egregious conduct by allowing such conduct to exist and persist, and allowing the cases that he knows to be tampered with to be forwarded for prosecution. Sheriff Meneley has elected to transfer and demote individuals who have cooperated with investigative officials and who refuse to stand silent on these issues of illegality when ordered to do so. These officers have been punished for their honesty; for their commitment to their oath. The actions of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department cannot be overlooked or discounted. Law enforcement personnel must abide by the laws they are required by oath to enforce. As the past Lord Chancellor of England once noted, "It is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong, nor is it sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means."

Although Kansas has not directly dealt with the issue, other Courts have dismissed cases based on governmental conduct that was so outrageous that it irreparably tainted the trial process. In State v. Gookins, 637 A.2d 1255 (1994), the defendant was allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to driving while under the influence of alcohol after it was discovered that the arresting officer had falsified Breathalyser results and had stolen money from drivers he had stopped in other drunk-driving cases. The court held that because public confidence in the criminal justice system depends on the integrity of the courts, the prosecutors, and the police, the system can never disregard misconduct by such actors in the fulfillment of their public duties. Id.

The practices of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and the conduct of specific personnel during the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 can be characterized in no other way but "outrageous." It is inconceivable that the persons charged with the duty of protecting society and enforcing the law, are not only breaking the law themselves, but have engaged in a department-wide conspiracy to conceal the illegal conduct. The corrupt nature of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department, coupled with the extreme lack of professionalism in the handling and storing of evidence, mandates a finding that the evidence in this case is so inherently suspect, that the Defendant cannot be afforded a fair trial.

Scope of Ruling

During the course of this proceeding, testimony has also brought to light numerous others who have faced prosecution on drug charges which either have resulted in convictions or are currently facing charges. These defendants have been investigated, charged, and prosecuted with unidentifiable tampered evidence, and in some cases, evidence that was non-existent. The Court's findings of fact beginning on page 56 of this decision regarding drug evidence shall pertain to all drug cases handled by the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department and forwarded to the Shawnee County District Attorney's Office during this specific time period. These findings, coupled with the synopsis of testimony recited in this decision shall serve as a basis for relief of those previously charged and convicted, those charged and awaiting disposition, or those with charges pending in Shawnee County District Court. Potential litigants making similar claims of that of Defendant in this matter need not bear the tremendous expense, nor should the Court expend its limited resources rehearing these allegations.

Attached as Addendum A is a list of known Shawnee County Sheriff's Department case numbers that the Court has acquired that pertain to potential drug cases filed during the relevant period of time. Those District Court cases corresponding with any of these Shawnee County Sheriff's Department case numbers may file with this Court for the appropriate relief consistent with this Order.

Tim Oblander's Motion - Renewed Objections to Production and Release of Treatment Records

Witness Tim Oblander's motion is essentially a request for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling issued March 1, 1999. The Court takes exception to any suggestion that Tim Oblander was not consulted and afforded ample opportunity to be heard on issues pertaining to release of his treatment records. Counsel for Oblander was contacted and present for all arguments on this matter prior to contacting Valley Hope, was present when the Court spoke with Valley Hope regarding the existence of these records, and lodged a lengthy objection prior to the Court ordering these records for an in camera inspection. Counsel for Oblander was present and heard prior to the Court releasing relevant portions of these records, and present and allowed to object to the testimony of Dr. Growney and Robert Correll. Consistent with the Court's recognition of the significance of the confidentiality attached to treatment records, the Court painstakingly protected witness Oblander's right to be heard on this issue.

Having previously considered the arguments raised in this motion, the Court is not persuaded to alter any of the previous ruling pertaining to these issues. The remainder of the motion far exceeds the scope of the request and includes matters that a witness has no standing to argue in a criminal proceeding. Oblander's renewed motion is denied.

The focus of this decision may appear to be on Tim Oblander's personal vulnerability to substance abuse and subsequent dependence and treatment at Valley Hope. It should be noted that the Court is neither highlighting Deputy Oblander's addiction nor does the Court wish to belittle his need for seeking treatment. In fact, the Court's focus is quite the contrary. Deputy Oblander is to be commended for seeking treatment and dealing with his drug problem. This opinion's focus is rather on the actions of stealing narcotic evidence, substituting foreign substances for drugs that are stolen and the subsequent concealment thereof by Sheriff Meneley and others in the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department. Most egregiously, the Sheriff, knowing this evidence to be tainted or missing nonetheless forwarded those cases for prosecution of citizens of our community. This pattern of conduct violates not only the various Defendants' Constitutional rights, but also contravenes traditional notions of justice and basic principles of equity and fairness that are the quintessence of our judicial system.

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis once observed:

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means. . . would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face."

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).

Decency, security, and the liberty interests of all our citizens are threatened by the circumstances surrounding this case. The matters brought before this Court are shocking and represent egregious violations of the right of a defendant to a fair trial. They strain our judicial system and mock the ideal of justice under the law. They shake not only public confidence in the system but the system itself. This Court cannot allow the misconduct of law enforcement officers to be ignored and excused, while citizens are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for the same criminality. For the reasons set forth in this Order the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies Tim Oblander's Renewed Motion. Additionally, this Order shall serve as the factual basis for those individuals similarly aggrieved by the conduct of the Sheriff's Department during the time period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1996. The foregoing Memorandum Decision and Order shall serve as the Court's entry of Judgment, no further journal entry being required.

DATED this _______ day of May, 1999.

 
ADDENDUM A