Month: May 2016

Edwardsville cleanup scheduled May 21

Edwardsville has scheduled a city-wide cleanup on Saturday, May 21.

The event will be from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. or until all available containers have been filled. It will take place in the City Hall parking lot, 690 S. 4th St., Edwardsville.

Those who participate in this cleanup must be residents of the city of Edwardsville and will be required to bring proof of residency, such as a utility bill or driver’s license, in order to unload their materials, a spokesman said.

There will be nine 40-yard Deffenbaugh dumpsters available as well as a 40-yard container for scrap metal provided by Advantage Metals. City staff will be on hand to help participants unload items.

Acceptable materials include: large applies such as refrigerators; scrap metal; electronic waste such as monitors and computers; bulky garbage such as mattresses; garbage normally accepted during trash pickup.

Items that are not acceptable include paint, batteries, oil, flammable materials, explosive materials, tires, concrete, stone, dirt and asphalt shingles.

Brush and yard waste may be taken to Deffenbaugh’s composting facility at 17955 Holliday Drive, Shawnee, Kan. Also, the Unified Government’s yard waste drop off site is open from now until November. Operating hours are Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. It is closed and holidays and weekends with holidays.

Attorney general asks Kansas Supreme Court to reconsider conflicting decisions on offender registration

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider conflicting opinions it issued last month and to uniformly apply the Kansas Offender Registration Act to all similarly situated offenders.

On a single day in April, the Kansas Supreme Court released five decisions that reached contrary results involving the Offender Registration Act. The cases areDoe v. Thompson, State v. Buser, State v. Redmond, State v. Charles and State v. Petersen-Beard.

In State v. Petersen-Beard, the court held that registration under the Offender Registration Act is not punishment, conflicting with the holdings of the other four cases. Petersen-Beard explicitly overruled the holdings of three of those other cases, but not of the fourth.

In filings today, Schmidt notes, “the conflicting decisions issued by the Supreme Court result in disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals subject to the Offender Registration Act, contrary to the fundamental due process and equal protection principles that like cases should be treated alike.”

Today’s filings request that the court modify its opinion in four of these cases to conform with the holding in Petersen-Beard. In the alternative, they ask the court to grant rehearing of the four cases.

“The current situation has created unnecessary confusion and inconsistency and runs afoul of the fair, logical and consistent articulation of the law that our legal system demands,” Schmidt said. “The meaning of the law simply cannot have changed in the blink of an eye between issuance of these conflicting opinions all on the same day.”