Attorney General Opinion No. 1987-049 PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Attorney General Opinion No. 1987-049 PDF full book. Access full book title Attorney General Opinion No. 1987-049 by Robert T. Stephan. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives people the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Mandatory drug testing of county employees, without regard to job performance, would violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the testing of such an employee is permissible if based upon "reasonable suspicion." Therefore, there is no constitutional bar to the testing of a county employee where circumstances give the employer a reasonable, objective basis to suspect illicit drug use by that employee. Mandatory drug testing of applicants, without regard to job requirements, would violate the Fourth Amendment. However, testing of an applicant is permissible if it is in furtherance of a bona fide effort to learn whether an applicant is physically capable of performing the duties of a particular job. Accordingly, mandatory drug testing of all applicants for public safety positions is permissible. Cited herein: K.S.A. 19-101; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 19-101a; U.S. Const., Fourth Amend.; Ks. Const., Bill of Rights, section 15.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives people the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Mandatory drug testing of county employees, without regard to job performance, would violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the testing of such an employee is permissible if based upon "reasonable suspicion." Therefore, there is no constitutional bar to the testing of a county employee where circumstances give the employer a reasonable, objective basis to suspect illicit drug use by that employee. Mandatory drug testing of applicants, without regard to job requirements, would violate the Fourth Amendment. However, testing of an applicant is permissible if it is in furtherance of a bona fide effort to learn whether an applicant is physically capable of performing the duties of a particular job. Accordingly, mandatory drug testing of all applicants for public safety positions is permissible. Cited herein: K.S.A. 19-101; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 19-101a; U.S. Const., Fourth Amend.; Ks. Const., Bill of Rights, section 15.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Kansas state board of agriculture may take a position on matters of public policy involving agricultural issues. The method of selecting members to the board as provided in K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 74-502 and 74-503 does not contravene the constitutional equal protection rights of Kansas residents. Cited herein: K.S.A. 46-221; 46-222; K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 74-502; 74-503; K.S.A. 74-504; 74-504a; 74-504b; 74-530; U.S. Const. Amend. 24; Kan. Const. Bill of Rights section 7.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The legislature intended that the term "noneconomic loss," found in K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 65-34,126 and not otherwise defined, have the meaning commonly accorded it and as defined by case law interpreting generally similar statutes. Cited herein: K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 65-34,100; 65-34,102; 65-34,126.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The mayor of a city of the third-class having the mayor-council form of government is not precluded by statute or by the common-law doctrine of incompatibility of offices from also performing the functions of a dog catcher, when such duties are vested in him by city ordinance and do not result in any additional compensation being paid to him. Cited herein: K.S.A. 15-301, 15-1402, 15-1407, 15-1502.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
In the absence of a city ordinance providing otherwise, a spouse of a council member may hold the office of city treasurer or the office of cemetery superintendent in a city of the second class having the mayor-council form of government, if such spouse is otherwise qualified to be appointed to the office. Additionally, a council member whose spouse holds a city office in a city of the second class is not disqualified from voting (as member of the city council) upon the remuneration for the office which the spouse holds, or upon other matters affecting said city office. Cited herein: K.S.A. 13-2903, 14-205, 14-537, 75-4304.
Author: Curt Thomas Schneider
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
Under the Small Claims Procedure Act, K.S.A. 61-2701 e̲t̲ s̲e̲q̲., a party may obtain the assistance of counsel in post-judgment proceedings, e̲.̲g̲.̲, involving attachment, levy and garnishment.
Author: American Bar Association. House of Delegates
Publisher: American Bar Association
ISBN: 9781590318737
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 216
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Mail Ballot Election Act, K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 25-431 e̲t̲ s̲e̲q̲., provides for the conduct of "question submitted" elections in various governmental subdivisions by mail ballot. The mail ballot procedure may not be used in an election at which any candidate is elected, retained or recalled. The county home rule statutes, K.S.A. 19-101b(c)(3), establish procedures for the conduct of an election on a charter resolution passed by the county governing board and provide that such elections shall be conducted "in the same manner as are elections for officers of such county." The phrase "in the same manner ..." as elections for county officers is ambiguous in this context and does not prevent, in the opinion of this office, the use of the mail ballot election act when a charter resolution is submitted to county voters. Cited herein: K.S.A. 19-101b(c)(3), 25-101; K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 25-409, 25-431, 25-433, 25-434, 25-437, 25-438, 25-439; K.S.A. 25-1434, 25-1452, 25-3001 to 25-3008.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
K.S.A. 72-977 is not unconstitutional as it does not mandate exceptional children to attend public schools. This compulsory attendance statute requires children attending public schools who have been determined to be exceptional children to attend special education services. To clarify this matter, K.S.A. 72-977 could be amended to provide, similar to K.S.A. 72-1111(a), that exceptional children attending private schools will be in compliance with the compulsory attendance requirements. Cited herein: K.S.A. 72-977; 72-1111; K.A.R. 1986 Supp. 91-12-39; 91-12-41; K.A.R. 91-12-49; K.A.R. 1986 Supp. 91-12-70.
Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Get Book Here
Book Description
K.S.A. 20-105 provides that to be qualified to hold the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals, a person must have been regularly admitted to practice law in Kansas and have engaged in the active and continuous practice of law for a period of at least ten years prior to the date of appointment as justice or judge. Though the strict definition of "active practice" would require that the legal activities of the person in question be pursued on a full-time basis and constitute his regular business, the general rule that statutory provisions imposing qualifications for office should be construed in favor of those seeking to hold office would serve to soften this requirement. Thus, a potential nominee need not be a full-time trial attorney to be considered as actively engaged in the practice of law, and is not automatically disqualified merely for holding a position which does not require legal expertise. Cited herein: K.S.A. 20-105; 20-3002; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3707.
