(Download) "In re Mckenna" by Supreme Court of Kansas " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In re Mckenna
 - Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
 - Release Date : January 12, 1991
 - Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
 - Pages : * pages
 - Size : 48 KB
 
Description
This is an original proceeding in discipline
            filed by the disciplinary administrator against Patrick E.
            McKenna, of Kingman, Kansas, an attorney duly admitted to the
            practice of law in Kansas. A hearing panel of the Kansas Board
            for Discipline of Attorneys unanimously found a violation of
            Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and (g), Supreme Court
            Rule 226 (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 290), in that respondent's
            conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and
            adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.   The facts as stipulated to by the parties were accepted by the
            panel and are included within the panel's report. No exceptions
            to the report were filed. Briefly summarized, the facts are that
            a search warrant was executed at respondent's residence based
            upon the belief that marijuana plants were being cultivated on
            respondent's property. Marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a vial
            containing cocaine residue were seized pursuant to the search
            warrant. Eighty growing marijuana plants were also seized.
            Subsequent investigation revealed that the plants were not
            growing on property owned by respondent. Respondent was charged
            with possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, possession
            of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, possession of
            cocaine, and unlawful use of weapons. The district court ruled
            that the evidence seized from respondent's home was inadmissible.
            This ruling applied only to evidence seized inside respondent's
            residence. Respondent denied knowledge of the existence of the
            growing marijuana plants, and a statement was obtained from an
            individual
            [249 Kan. 216]