Pubdate: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 Source: Topeka Capital-Journal (KS) Copyright: 1999 The Topeka Capital-Journal Contact: 616 S.E. Jefferson, Topeka, Kansas 66607 Website: http://cjonline.com/ Author: STEVE FRY The Capital-Journal BIG MAN, BIG PROBLEM Sheriff Dave Meneley started 1999 as the county's chief cop wearing a badge and ends the year as a defendant facing two perjury charges and an attempt to force him out of office. What happened in between? Have you heard about the sheriff's deputy?" the tipster asked a reporter in February 1996. "No. What's up?" "There's a Shawnee County sheriff's deputy assigned to the drug unit. He's working undercover, buying drugs from dope dealers. But he tried some cocaine, now he's hooked on it, he can't get off, and he's using drug evidence," the tipster said. "Who's the deputy?" "Tim Oblander." Fast forward to the present when Sheriff Dave Meneley, Oblander, now a former deputy, and sheriff's Sgt. Frank Good face criminal perjury charges in Shawnee County District Court for allegedly lying under oath, all linked to Oblander's cocaine abuse when he was a deputy. Starting Jan. 18, Meneley fights for his political life as a two-judge panel will decide whether to force him from the office he has held for seven years based on charges filed by the attorney general's office. In a slam-bang chain of events starting in December 1998, it's been a tumultuous year in the sheriff's office since a district judge unveiled hundreds of pages of investigative reports compiled by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation about the disappearance of cocaine evidence from a sheriff's department drug evidence locker. The interweaving criminal and civil legal cases and the large cast of characters has created, at times, a confusing story. What follows is a recap of how the scandal got to where it is today. The missing cocaine The case started in early 1996 when District Attorney Joan Hamilton wrote a letter to Attorney General Carla Stovall asking her office to assign the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to probe what happened to three-quarters of an ounce of cocaine that disappeared from an evidence locker at the sheriff's department in July 1994. Hamilton's office got a tip a deputy might be linked to the disappearance. The months-long KBI investigation ended in August 1996 within days of the statute of limitations expiring. No charges were filed, and the case and its almost 400-page report hibernated for two years until October 1998. Hamilton then mailed letters to defense attorneys asking them to search their files for old drug cases investigated by sheriff's deputies because the KBI report might contain evidence that could clear their clients. A judge granted the request of two assistant public defenders representing a drug client to open the KBI report. Later, that case was dismissed after a uniformed Oblander sat in a witness chair and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against giving testimony that could incriminate him. Meneley declined to discipline Oblander, saying the corporal has the same rights as anyone else. Also in October 1998, Bruce Harrington, a Topeka defense attorney, told how a client whispered to him in court that during a February 1997 preliminary hearing a deputy was falsely testifying about the amount of cocaine confiscated from the defendant during a sheriff's narcotics drug bust. Deputies took more cocaine than the deputy testified, the client told Harrington. In an interview with a Capital-Journal reporter, Meneley dismissed the accusations. "I would never believe a crook," Meneley said last week when asked about the defendant's comments to Harrington. When drugs disappear from a law enforcement evidence room, "the criminals, and especially the defense attorneys, exaggerate it. Drug dealers will say anything." When asked last year about the persistent rumor that a deputy was addicted to drugs and had reached into the sheriff's department drug evidence room, Meneley said, "That's not true." As for Harrington's client, the felony cocaine sale charge was dismissed in July 1997, and he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor drug charge. KBI report opens "Personally, I'm glad it's out," Meneley said two days before the KBI report went public. The KBI report exploded into public view Dec. 7, 1998, after District Judge Thomas Conklin unsealed it. Copies of the 371-page report were sold at the courthouse for $12.60, the cost of photocopying it. Conklin opened it after The Topeka Capital-Journal filed a lawsuit asking that it be unsealed. Among the buyers was defense attorney William Rork, who bought two copies, saying he was reviewing the report on behalf of Meneley. The report included interviews of deputies who told KBI agents that: Meneley told two deputies that Oblander was the person who stole another narcotics officer's cocaine evidence in 1994, had taken and used some of the drugs he had purchased on the street and was in treatment for cocaine and methamphetamine use. Meneley denied making those statements. The two deputies also told KBI agents that Oblander had told the sheriff he had a drug problem. But Meneley testified that when Oblander entered a substance abuse treatment facility in 1996, Oblander was being treated for an alcohol problem. Meneley said he didn't know Oblander had a drug problem while he worked for the department. Two deputies told KBI agents that Sgt. Good told them Oblander had a cocaine problem and had taken drug evidence from a department locker. When questioned July 26, 1996, during the inquisition, Oblander invoked the Fifth Amendment on eight occasions, including whether he had knowledge about the theft of the missing cocaine, whether he told Meneley about the missing cocaine and whether he told Meneley he was undergoing drug treatment at any particular facility. In a news conference in December 1998, Oblander said he took the Fifth Amendment during the Nov. 23, 1998, drug hearing to avoid embarrassment about treatment he underwent for alcoholism and to protect himself from possible questions about whether he was drinking on duty and while driving a sheriff's department car. Oblander denied stealing cocaine from the sheriff's department evidence locker, denied being a cocaine user and denied telling Meneley he stole the cocaine and was a cocaine user. A day later during a news conference of his own, Meneley lashed out. He said statements by some deputies that he knew who took cocaine from an evidence locker in 1994 were "a lie." Meneley was asked whether two deputies made false statements about Oblander and the missing evidence. "I guess it comes down to one man's word against another. The fact of the matter is I have no knowledge of where this cocaine went," Meneley said. The Hernandez hearings The scandal picked up speed in January and February 1999 when deputies testified Meneley and Good had confided that Oblander was using cocaine and had taken drugs. The hearing was launched after Carlos Hernandez, a convicted murderer in an unrelated case, asked a judge to dismiss two drug charges against him, alleging the drug evidence against him was tainted as a result of mishandling by deputies. Prosecution and defense attorneys battled over whether District Judge Eric Rosen should release records of Oblander's treatment at an Atchison substance abuse clinic to determine whether he was treated for cocaine abuse or alcoholism. On Feb. 26, Oblander resigned. Three days later, less than an hour before Rosen was to issue a decision on whether to release his clinic records, Oblander faxed an admission of his cocaine and alcohol to Rosen and the newspaper from the office of Rork, his attorney. Rosen did release Oblander's medical records, which showed the former deputy had been treated for cocaine abuse. The Rosen ruling After the Hernandez hearings ended, Rosen dismissed drug charges against Hernandez. But more importantly, Rosen's ruling blistered the conduct of a small group in the sheriff's department as "outrageous," saying Meneley tried to cover up illegal activities by demoting, transferring and promoting deputies. The ruling also said any sheriff's department drug evidence in a three-year time frame was contaminated. As a result, District Judge Charles Andrews has dismissed or overturned several pending drug cases or drug convictions. On March 17, 1999, Meneley had dared Hamilton to charge him with something linked to the drug scandal so he could have his day in court. Meneley issued the dare during a radio talk show. In April 1999, Hamilton answered his dare. Meneley and Good were arrested a day apart for their testimony during the Hernandez hearing. Their arrest came less than three weeks after Oblander's arrest on six counts of perjury and one count of official misconduct. On May 24, Stovall cited 13 counts of willful misconduct or violations of moral turpitude when she asked the Shawnee County District Court to force Meneley out of office. Grounds for an ouster are willful misconduct, willful neglect to perform a duty required by law or violation of any statute involving moral turpitude, according to Kansas law. Legal jousting From there, the criminal cases against Meneley, Good and Oblander and the ouster proceeding, a civil action, spiraled into a complex series of legal maneuvering. The next several months are a morass of filings, counter filings, and appeals of court decisions. Defense challenges have sought to remove prosecutors, witnesses, evidence, judges and sometimes even themselves from one or more cases. And the results? Rork was disqualified from defending either Meneley or Oblander after two district judges said it was a conflict of interest for him to represent both officers or either officer. The criminal cases took side trips into the U.S. District Court to appeal state court decisions disqualifying Rork. Federal judges didn't reverse the state court decisions. None of the three criminal defendants has been tried. Good has been bound over for a trial that is to start Feb. 7. Meneley will appear for a preliminary hearing starting Jan. 11. In a diversion agreement, Oblander agreed to testify against Meneley and Good. The ouster trial, which was to have been on the fast track and was predicted to be decided by September 1999, then later was rescheduled to Nov. 8, still hasn't gone to trial. The three-judge panel appointed to hear the ouster was trimmed to District Judges Matthew Dowd and Richard Anderson after a ruling by an out-of-county judge concluded the public could question whether Meneley could get a fair trial based on remarks attributed to District Judge Marla Luckert, the third judge on the panel. And the clock continues to tick. - --- MAP posted-by: Don Beck