Topeka — Former Shawnee County Sheriff Dave Meneley asked the state Supreme Court to overturn his ouster, but the justices struggled Thursday with the question of whether they should even take up his case.
Two district court judges removed Meneley in February 2000. They concluded that he had given false testimony in two instances and concealed from investigators the disappearance of drug evidence from his department. Meneley has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
He can't get the sheriff's job back, because his appointed successor, Richard Barta, defeated him in the Republican primary, then won the general election last year.
That fact made several justices ask during arguments whether they have any real legal issue to resolve. They noted that Meneley asked for a new ouster trial even though he no longer holds an office from which he can be ousted.
"We're kind of in Neverland here," Justice Donald Allegrucci said from the bench.
Meneley was elected sheriff in 1992 and re-elected in 1996. His legal problems started in 1994 with the disappearance of at least a half-ounce of cocaine from an evidence locker.
Five years later, a District Court judge overturned a defendant's drug conviction, saying drugs used as evidence by the Sheriff's Department from January 1994 through December 1996 were "irreparably contaminated and tainted."
In 1999, a narcotics officer admitted addictions to alcohol and cocaine since 1995 and resigned. Meneley said he had no prior knowledge of the officer's problem, but other members of the department said they heard about it from Meneley.
Atty. Gen. Carla Stovall started an ouster proceeding against Meneley, citing 13 counts of willful misconduct or violations of "moral turpitude."
Joan Hamilton, then Shawnee County district attorney, filed two perjury counts against Meneley for his testimony in court.
Meneley went to trial last year on the perjury charges, but a jury deadlocked in August. Hamilton sought a second trial, but she lost the general election, and her successor, Robert Hecht, dropped the charges.
A key issue in Meneley's appeal is whether the two judges should have put Stovall's ouster case on hold while the perjury case against him proceeded.
If the Supreme Court decides to consider Meneley's case, it could rule as early as April 20.
But in his first question to Meneley attorney Margie Phelps, Justice Fred N. Six wondered whether the court should rule.
"Why isn't this case moot?" Six asked Phelps.
Phelps noted that Meneley lost the state certification he needs to serve in law enforcement because of the ouster. Also, she said, his reputation was damaged.
Assistant Atty. Gen. M.J. Willoughby raised the question of whether Meneley's case is moot.
If Meneley prevailed, she said, "What would be the relief?"
Justice Tyler Lockett asked whether Meneley would be entitled to pay from the date he was removed from office until the end of his term. Willoughby said Meneley could pursue a separate civil lawsuit.
But Allegrucci said that under Willoughby's theory, an official ousted from office could not pursue an appeal because it would be futile.
"If he won, he'd clear his name," Allegrucci said.
Willoughby acknowledged: "That might be interest enough."
Willoughby also said the public interest was served by having the ouster case dealt with quickly.
"Ouster is not about punishing the offender, the public official," she said. "It's about preserving the public's right to integrity in an office."
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.