Isn't Ensey the guy whose family owns the hotel/liquor license that started all of this?
Kari Newell is the individual with the DUI that is attempting to get the liquor license and whose information was allegedly obtained illegally, prompting the search.
I'm not sure this is grounds for disqualification. No matter how Ensey decides to proceed against the police I don't think it moves the needle on whether or not Newell gets her liquor license or doesn't, so can't possibly harm or help his family's interests.
EDIT: Maybe the argument that he's biased is that he's inclined to sweep it under the run to keep his family's name out of the paper? That's reasonable.
It seems a felony DUI conviction would bar Newell from securing a liquor license [1]. (I don't believe Newell had a felony DUI conviction.)
> No, a felony must be expunged to work as an employee who serves, mixes and dispenses alcohol or manages employees who handle alcohol.
Jesus. Stripping people of their employment for a few years is acceptable if the offense is related to the employment. But forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life? That's nuts.
It looks like a felony DUI in Kansas means you're on your third or fourth DUI [1].
That's an awful lots of "if"s to attach to a lifelong limitation.
F.ex. Do we all want to bet how often politician and wealthy donors' children take a felony DUI charge vs the general populace?
We can have a meaningful discussion whether a single bad decision should destroy a life,but let's call it what it is, a decision, not a "chance".
They go unpunished.
And yet, they were still committing the crime of driving under the influence... they (and everyone else) just got lucky.
Personally, I think bars should just be required to take keys. Take a breathalyzer, get your keys back. And the bar has liability for this. These aren't rocket science, million dollar devices.
In most states they already do, under so-called "dram shop laws."
But since it's very easy to lie about where someone was drinking, the incentives are such you still need the bar owner willing to enforce this. If only we had some heuristics for who might be appropriate!
And require a bar to be able to produce a signed result for anyone who bought a drink at their establishment, if subsequently requested.
There will always be loopholes, but it feels like we could do more to preclude DUIs instead of punishing only those we catch.
If we really cared about it as much as the legal penalties make us feel like we do, there wouldn't be any wiggle room for wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Three people shouldn't be able to do the same thing, and one gets the book thrown at them while the other two have zero consequences.
Go read the link provided.
> a felony conviction of *any* type.
These things can typically be plead down to a lesser charge if its a first offense etc., so if it stuck as a felony conviction, there must've been serious circumstances (I'm speculating here, we don't know the details of the conviction).
1) will not or cannot spend $200 on an expungement, or
2) did something disgusting enough during the course of committing their felony that a judge cannot be persuaded to expunge their conviction record. (I just assume there's some judicial discretion with this in Kansas.)
As the grandparent post noted, there's no reason to assume the felony rules are relevant in this case.
However, preventing someone the ability to vote for life is something I'd agree with you if that's what you want to get upset about, but you're current argument falls flat
A person dispensing alcohol in many states and provinces is legally responsible for safety of their patrons. Argument might be made that in all cases they have some moral responsibility as well - although I understand there are people who will philosophically disagree with this and I think interesting discussion can be had there.
A person with "felony DUI" has proven to a tremendous (and usually repeated) degree that they cannot execute a key portion of what their liquor license actually entails.
So understanding slippery slope arguments and so on, in this one case, I'm not outraged at the regulation.
They can work in a bar with the conviction, just not run it.
According to the link provided above, no, you cannot work with alcohol in a license holding establishment with ANY felony.
Police conducted the raid. The Marion County Attorney withdrew the search warrant on the basis of "'insufficient evidence'...to establish a 'legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized'" [1].
Said attorney's brother, with his wife, "owns Marion’s Historic Elgin Hotel, where the restaurant Chef’s Plate at Parlour 1886 is located. The hotel’s liquor license is currently held by [the wife], but is only valid through Aug. 28. Newell owns Chef’s Plate and is seeking her own liquor license" [2]. (Newell is the proximate cause of this mess.)
At face value, this looks like a conflicted party asking a third party to take over a tainted investigation.
[1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article27830017...
[2] https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...
KBI is not a third party, they were active participants in the investigation leading to the raid, and released a supportive statement during the outrage over it.
(The third party that needs to get involved is the US DOJ.)
https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/13/kbi-director-on-mario...
Or more generally we could just assume that the Ensey's and Newell are friends due to their business relationship, so the County Attorney was simply attempting to protect his friend from bad press.
Either that or against the people publishing the suppressed criminal history of the judge.
It's possible the paper did break some laws.
The odds don't look good that they did (vs other motives), and even if they did the warrant and seizures were likely illegally extensive, but it's a possibility.
Either we care about actual facts and laws, or we judge that on the basis of who the accused is.
The correct action would be to:
- Support the paper financially so they can fund a robust defense
- Continue to press for an investigation into the original warrant and seizure