• Jan 10, 2014
  • KSNW TV

LAWRENCE, Kansas – Freedom of speech. It’s in the First Amendment. Some say it’s been dampened in Kansas.

The Kansas Board of Regents recently announced that speech by University employees that is a detriment to the functions of the University, could be cause for discipline.

The issue stems from a controversy initiated by David Guth, a professor at KU who has been kicked out of the classroom by the University of Kansas. Guth tweeted a very controversial tweet last year about the Navy Yard shootings. Some took offense.

Now, some professors say the Kansas Board of Regents policy could have a chill on free speech. In fact, some say they wonder if they could be disciplined or even fired for talking to the media.

“Even having this conversation, if could come within, potentially, the Board of Regents policy,” says KU Law Professor Raj Bhala. “Of course, I am speaking strictly to you on a personal level now. I am not acting as a representative of the university in this conversation.”

Some attorneys in Kansas say this case, if it progresses, could land at the Supreme Court.

“The United States Supreme Court has long emphasized academic freedom under the first amendment,” says Wichita attorney Dan Monnat. “The issue involved in the Board of Regents policy here, brings up exactly the question that has not been decided by the United States Supreme Court. That is, whether the rule restricting speech of public employees applies in academic freedom and scholarship.”

The University of Kansas did respond to KSN requests for comment on the Board of Regents policy.

“The free exchange of ideas is vital to the success of all universities,” said KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little. “We’re working with our faculty, staff and the Board of Regents to ensure the Board’s policy respects and preserves that freedom.”

See video at KSN

KSNW TV

  • Jan 07, 2014
  • KSNW TV
  • -
  • by Felix Rodrigues-Lima

WICHITA, Kansas – A drug abuse assessment form may become one of the factors that determines which welfare recipients will have to take a drug test to receive benefits.

The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory, or SASSI, has been used for years by the Department of Children and Families to assess whether people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, benefits. Until now, it had mostly been used to screen people who need treatment.

But starting in July, it could be one of the deciding factors in who will have to submit a drug test to continue receiving welfare benefits, raising concerns from legal experts.

“How many constitutional rights might a person be required to give up in order to feed her or his family?” KSN legal expert Dan Monnat said.

The assessment is a two-sided piece of paper that asks a variety of questions. Many of them are true or false questions, but it also asks about the reasons a person drinks or does drugs and the effects alcohol and drugs have on the person.

“Part of that is looking at underlying beliefs and attitudes that might be related to substance abuse disorders, and then there’s the overt, yes this person is doing something that is directly related to substance abuse disorder,” Chenoa Simmons-Daniels, a drug counselor at Higher Ground in downtown Wichita, said.

Simmons-Daniels and others use the SASSI assessment to help identify whether a client has a problem.

“No tool is perfect, so we definitely would hope that it not just be, you know, you walk into an office, do the SASSI, and that just determines your future,” Meredith Reuter, another drug counselor, added. “We would hope there would also be interaction with someone skilled and knowledgeable in substance abuse.”

When state lawmakers approved the program last year, they wrote into the law that people with established “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse would be the ones subject to drug screening. Whether the screening establishes that is up for debate, Monnat said.

“The question is, will it be determined based upon a psychological test for substance abuse or is that itself a search requiring the predicate of reasonable suspicion?” he said.

Counselors like Reuter vouched for the assessment’s accuracy.

“We have had people take the SASSI where their results probably came out similar to what a substance abuser’s would look like, but for various reasons, there were other things that impacted the outcome of the test,” Reuter said. “So I would say it’s an accurate representation of a person, but there’s definitely other things that need to be taken into consideration.”

Although the process has not been fully determined, for those that have to test, if they test positive, benefits would likely be suspended until the person completes a treatment program.

See video at KSN

KSNW TV – by Felix Rodrigues-Lima

  • Dec 17, 2013
  • The Wichita Eagle
  • -
  • by Tim Potter

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government has mounted a number of investigations in which undercover FBI agents or informers have posed as co-conspirators with suspects who get charged with trying to carry out plots.

It has spawned a national debate about whether the suspects are really terrorists or just easily manipulated people who become victims of entrapment. With the arrest of Terry Lee Loewen at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport on Friday, that national debate has come to the Air Capital of the World.

Loewen, a 58-year-old avionics technician, has been charged in an alleged plot to use his airport access to try to drive a car bomb onto the tarmac to inflict maximum deaths. Two FBI employees posed as people engaging him or helping him to carry out the attack, a criminal complaint said. Loewen didn’t find out he had been fooled until he tried to carry out the attack with what was inert material, not high explosives, the court document said.

A letter to the editor in Tuesday’s Eagle typifies the entrapment argument: “The FBI has a pattern of seeking out naive, harmless, disaffected individuals and using them to orchestrate a crime. … Terry Lee Loewen has been entrapped along with others in these phony plots,” wrote Don Anderson of Winfield.

A counter argument comes from the website of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a nonprofit institute based in the Washington, D.C., area, commenting on the Loewen case: “Many national Islamist groups have criticized similar sting operations, arguing the FBI is manufacturing a terrorist threat where it might not exist. If Loewen’s correspondence in the complaint proves accurate, however, he was a man with the motivation and access to pull off a horrific attack. Left alone, he might have found ways to make his own bomb.”

John Henderson, one of the federal public defenders representing Loewen, declined to comment Tuesday. Jim Cross, Wichita-based spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said it “will reserve its comments for the courtroom” because the case is pending.

What is entrapment?

Wichita defense lawyer Dan Monnat says it involves two elements: law enforcement inducing someone to commit a crime, and the person having no predisposition to commit the crime.

“The defense of entrapment reflects the sound public policy that it is unconscionable for government officers to ensnare the innocent and law-abiding into the commission of crime,” Monnat said. Entrapment exists when the criminal idea originates with government agents instead of the accused and when the accused is persuaded by the officers to commit the crime, he said.

A January 2012 article by David J. Gottfried on the FBI’s website, titled “Avoiding the Entrapment Defense in a Post-911 World,” notes that since 9/11, there has been an emphasis on preventing attacks. “In other words, law enforcement must, in a controlled manner, divert someone determined to harm the United States and its people into a plot bound to fail from the outset, instead of one that might succeed,” wrote Gottfried, a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

To avoid the defense getting an acquittal based on a successful entrapment argument, Gottried said, careful planning of the investigation and careful execution by law enforcement is key. Part of the test, he said, is that “defendants must show by a preponderance of evidence … that officers induced them to commit the crime. Assuming defendants make their showing of inducement, the burden of proof moves to the prosecution, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.” So an entrapment defense can fail either by the defendant not being able to show inducement or by prosecutors proving the defendant was predisposed.

Only authorities know the whole case against Loewen. But they have laid out, in detail, some of their case against Loewen, in a 21-page, footnoted criminal complaint:

Loewen told an undercover FBI employee about his “desire to engage in violent jihad,” or holy war. About four months before his arrest, he said: “Brothers like Osama bin Laden … are a great inspiration to me.” He said he had a number of ways he could “perform jihad” and that “none of them are legal.” He read a magazine with terrorist ties. He said, “I really don’t see me living through any thing I have in mind.” As the months went on, he kept reiterating his commitment to jihad. He said, “Don’t you think with my access to the airport that I should put that to good use?” Around Sept. 21, he spoke of how “It would have been possible today for me to have walked over there, shot both pilots … slapped some C4 on both fuel trucks and set them off before anyone even called TSA.”

After the undercover FBI employee told Loewen he “could back out at any time,” he continued ahead, sending photos of gates to the tarmac and suggesting that a company logo could be painted on a vehicle, “allowing more time to modify said vehicle for an operation.” And this: “count me in for the duration.” The plot progressed to the point that Loewen was suggesting that another person could detonate a suicide vest in the terminal, the complaint said.

Finally, the court document said, about a month before the attack, Loewen “further expressed his desire to kill as many people as possible, and he explained where to park a vehicle full of explosives.”

In a letter to his family, he wrote: “I expect to be called a terrorist (which I am), a psychopath, and a homicidal maniac.”

Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said that based on the criminal complaint, “he had a predisposition.” Along the way, the undercover employees “provided him several outs,” Emerson said.

In most successful interventions to prevent terrorist attacks, authorities are using undercover people posing as co-conspirators, Emerson said.

He said he knows of no successful entrapment defense in a terrorism case after 9/11.

It seems that Loewen was mentally aware of what he was doing, Emerson said, adding that terrorists “might seem crazy to others … but they’re not crazy” even though others can’t rationalize terrorism.

The investigation of Loewen would have been authorized only after a “tremendous legal review,” Emerson said, adding that approval for “an operation like this comes out of headquarters.”

Mike German, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and based in Washington, D.C., said he wouldn’t comment on the Loewen case because not all the facts are known. But in general, German said, “The FBI has clearly been pushing the envelope in previous sting cases.” The situation has caused the current skepticism among the public, said German, a former FBI agent who said he worked undercover in domestic terrorism cases.

Questionable sting cases “exploit the fear” caused by terrorism, German said. Too many times, he said, the person targeted by the investigation doesn’t have the capability to carry out an attack even if he had intent.

There is a way to investigate a risk without intervening so much and “manufacturing the plot,” German said.

For the government, he said, building cases becomes a way to argue for more funding, resources and authority “rather than taking an honest assessment of the threats that exist.”

German said it comes down to politics – making it appear that government is tough on terrorism.

Read full article here

The Wichita Eagle – By Tim Potter

  • Dec 16, 2013
  • KSNW TV

WICHITA, Kansas – Terry Lee Loewen made national news when he tried to blow up his car on the tarmac at Wichita’s Mid-Continent Airport.

Court papers show Loewen reached out to people he thought were Al Qaida.  They walked him through the process of building a bomb and making the plan.

But those people were really FBI agents.

“He went forward, and he went forward right to the very end.”

Former FBI agent Daniel Jablonski says FBI agents are on the lookout for homegrown terrorism.

He also says it is very clear that FBI agents root out potential terrorists but do not entrap.

“You need to investigate and ask the questions. And our job was that of a fact finder,” said Jablonski.

Jablonski says court papers in the Terry Loewen case are clear.

It appears Loewen had the intent to do harm to a lot of people.

He says the FBI just got to Loewen before he found somebody else.

Attorneys say entrapment defense likely on tap for Loewen.

“For there to be entrapment, two ingredients are necessary. One, government inducement. Two, no predisposition by the accused to commit the crime,” said Dan Monnat, legal analyst.

Monnat says entrapment could certainly be argued.

Those who have gone after potential bad guys with the FBI say it appears the government has put together a pretty solid case against Loewen at least so far.

“We were not making judgements but to obtain the facts.”

See video at KSN

KSNW TV

  • Dec 14, 2013
  • Associated Press
  • -
  • by Roxana Hegeman

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) – The arrest of a Kansas man accused of trying to bring what he thought was a car bomb into a Wichita airport marked the culmination of a months-long undercover sting in what has become a successful and widely used domestic counterterrorism tactic.

Court documents detail Terry Lee Loewen’s alleged conversations with undercover FBI agents over six months. The discussions began with vague sentiments about his desire to commit “violent jihad” against the U.S. before turning into a detailed, concrete plot in which the agents recruited him to use his airport access to plant a bomb in a martyrdom operation.

Loewen, a 58-year-old avionics technician who worked at the airport for Hawker Beechcraft, was arrested Friday on charges including providing support to al-Qaida and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He remains jailed, and prosecutors expect to take their case to a grand jury Wednesday.

The case resembles a string of investigations conducted by the FBI since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that have prompted controversy over whether law enforcement’s tactics involve entrapment and violate civil liberties.

One such case involved an undercover agent pretending to be a terrorist who provided a teenager with a phony car bomb, then watched him plant it in downtown Chicago. In Boston, a man was sentenced to 17 years in prison for plotting with undercover agents to fly remote-controlled planes packed with explosives into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

The FBI insists the stings are a vital, legal tool for averting potentially deadly terrorist attacks – and juries have returned tough sentences.

Dan Monnat, a prominent Kansas defense attorney who isn’t representing Loewen, said the 21-page criminal complaint against Loewen doesn’t contain enough information to find his guilt or evidence of FBI entrapment. But he questioned the FBI’s tactics.

“If the fragile mental state of an otherwise upstanding individual is exploited to commit a crime that the individual otherwise would not have taken steps to commit, how does that make us safe and why spend taxpayer money on prosecution?” Monnat said Saturday.

“If that is what happened here, we have to ask ourselves: Is grooming terrorists the best use of our taxpayer money for security? If the person otherwise would never have taken further steps in furtherance of terrorism, what is the point?”

But entrapment defenses have failed in various cases. In a 2009 case in New York, a federal judge said she was not proud of the government’s role in nurturing an alleged conspiracy in which four men were convicted in a plot to bomb synagogues and shoot down military planes with missiles. The men were each sentenced to 25 years in prison.

In an unsuccessful appeal, the defense argued the men were harmless dupes led astray by an FBI informant who infiltrated a mosque. With the encouragement of the informant, one of the men hatched the scheme to blow up the synagogues in the Bronx and to shoot down military cargo planes with missiles.

The appeals court found the government’s tactics didn’t rise to the level of “outrageous misconduct.”

Court documents don’t specify what initially led investigators to Loewen, though he allegedly told an undercover agent during one online exchange: “hey I read Inspire magazine; I believe in staying informed.” Inspire, an English-language online magazine, is produced by al-Qaida affiliates. It includes such things as bomb-making instructions and endorsements of lone-wolf terror attacks.

He also allegedly told the undercover agent he’d downloaded tens of thousands of pages about jihad, martyrdom operations and Sharia law, and printed out an al-Qaida manual – online activity that often draws law enforcement’s attention.

U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom declined to discuss the case Saturday. But in May, he told students during an event at Wichita State University that authorities monitor extremists groups’ websites, including Inspire magazine.

“Do not go to this website,” Grissom said. “You will be on our list.”

In Loewen’s case, court documents paint an undercover operation in which Loewen and two FBI agents posing as conspirators ultimately hatched a plot to place a vehicle full of explosives at the Wichita airport. He allegedly timed it to cause “maximum carnage” and death, according to an FBI affidavit.

In early October, one undercover agent told Loewen he’d just returned from overseas after meeting with individuals connected with al-Qaida, and that the “brothers” were excited to hear about his access to the airport. When the agent asked if he’d be willing to plant a bomb, Loewen allegedly told him the plans were “like a dream come true for me, and I never expect things this good to occur in my life.”

Over the coming months, he allegedly conspired with the agents. Loewen, who once claimed to know nothing about explosives, assisted an undercover agent assemble a bomb – but with inert explosives – using components he took from his employer. Two days later, an undercover agent picked Loewen up at a local hotel, went to another location to get the fake bomb and drove to Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.

Loewen was arrested early Friday as he twice tried to use his badge to gain entry to the tarmac.

In a letter dated Wednesday that prosecutors say Loewen left for a family member, Loewen said he expected to be martyred for Allah by the time the letter was read. He wrote that his only explanation was that he believed in jihad for the sake of Allah and his Muslim brothers and sisters, though he said most Muslims in the U.S. would condemn him.

“I expect to be called a terrorist (which I am), a psychopath, and a homicidal maniac,” the letter said.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper, citing police, reported Saturday that Loewen has had at least one brush with the law, a concealed-carry violation at the airport in 2009.

Loewen has been described by a relative and a neighbor as a good person who largely kept to himself. His wife attended his initial court appearance Friday but refused to talk with reporters, as did his attorney.

Read full story here

Associated Press – By Roxana Hegeman

  • Dec 11, 2013
  • KSNW TV

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court says a lower court should not have overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man who admitted killing a Kansas sheriff.

The high court Wednesday unanimously overturned the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision to throw out Scott Cheever’s death sentence for the 2005 fatal shooting of Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels.

“It’s been a long time coming,” Heath Samuels, Matt Samuels’s son and a Lyon County Sheriff’s deputy, told KSN Wednesday. “We know it’s not over yet, and we expect to hear more appeals out of it.”

The Kansas court said Cheever’s rights against self-incrimination were violated by prosecutors who used a court-ordered mental evaluation from a different trial against him.

Cheever’s own expert argued that methamphetamine use had damaged his brain. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that because Cheever’s side raised the brain damage issue, prosecutors were entitled to use testimony from the mental health expert from the other trial. That expert said Cheever killed because of an anti-social personality, not because of brain damage.

See video at KSN

KSNW TV

  • Nov 18, 2013
  • Monnat & Spurrier

Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered Ranked Among Best Law Firms As Rated by U.S. News & World Report – Best Lawyers

(WICHITA, Kan.) – “Best Law Firms” – a listing produced by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers – has ranked Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered among the Best Law Firms in this metropolitan region in two categories:

    • Appellate Practice
    • Criminal Defense: White-Collar

The rankings are posted online at Bestlawfirms.usnews.com.

“Best Law Firms” is one of U.S. News & World Report’s series of consumer guides. The magazine teams with Best Lawyers, the oldest peer-review publication in the legal profession, to rank each practice area by geographic region. In surveys, law firm clients and leading lawyers were asked what factors they considered vital for clients who hire firms, and for lawyers who choose firms to refer legal matters to.

Monnat & Spurrier was founded in 1985 by defense attorney Dan Monnat and legal scholar Stan Spurrier. The firm has six lawyers and has gained an international reputation through its defense of such high-profile clients as late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, the Garden Plain football coach, Todd Puetz, and the unfortunate person whose home was mistakenly raided by police as being that of serial killer BTK.

In addition to Monnat and Spurrier, the firm includes three former prosecutors and a former public defender, all noted for their work in criminal courts: Trevor Riddle, Sal Intagliata, Jon McConnell and Robb Hunter.

Dan Monnat
Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered
200 W. Douglas, Suite 830
Wichita, KS  67202
316.264.2800

  • Nov 08, 2013
  • Monnat & Spurrier

Lawyer of the Year — Criminal Defense: Non-White-Collar
Lawyer of the Year — Daniel E. Monnat
Monnat & Spurrier Chartered
Education: JD, Creighton University.
Years as a lawyer: 37.

Firms at which you’ve worked: Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered, 1985-present; Fisher & Monnat, 1983-1985; Shulz, Fry & Fisher, 1977-1983; Schrempp & McQuade (Omaha), 1976-1977.

Why did you choose to become a lawyer? I wanted to lend whatever boldness and artistic talent I had to those less able to stand up and fight for themselves. Whether you justify that by the Tao, the Sermon on the Mount or the United States Constitution, that’s a good thing to do. All power and authority need someone to question it. And, each of us, at one time or another, needs someone to understand us and give voice to our humanity. The combination results in what we all crave: justice and freedom.

What is your favorite thing about practicing law? The jury system. Every day, ordinary people come together and, as a group, unite to rise above the prejudices and politics of the day. Again and again, these citizens deliver justice and freedom.

What’s the biggest challenge facing the legal profession? The vanishing jury trial. The jury trial is one of “The People’s” checks and balances on the three branches of government involved in our legal system. But, increasingly, jury trials do not occur.

Who has been your mentor? I’ve been very lucky throughout my life to have had a number of very generous mentors: my parents for everything, Mike Finnigan for music, Father Bob Williams for writing and philosophy, the celebrated Wyoming attorney Gerry Spence for trial skills and understanding the group dynamics of juries. Foremost, however, I have had the mentorship and guidance of my wife, the incomparable Chinese martial artist Grace Wu-Monnat, whose intuitive and intelligent study of people, and particularly jurors, has guided and assisted me in every trial for the last 22 years. Like the culture she comes from, her wisdom is ancient and awesome.

Read full article here

  • Oct 28, 2013
  • Monnat & Spurrier

WICHITA, Kan. – For the ninth consecutive year, criminal defense attorney Dan Monnat, of Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered, has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Kansas and Missouri by the magazine, “Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers – 2013.”  Only 5 percent of all attorneys in Missouri and Kansas are included in Super Lawyers, making selection to the Top 100 the most elite of this exclusive legal group.

“The Top 100 is a pre-eminent group of attorneys that includes all areas of legal practice.  I’m honored and humbled to be ranked among them,” Monnat said.

Monnat has practiced in Wichita for more than 36 years.  A graduate of California State University, Monnat holds a Juris Doctorate from Creighton University School of Law and is a graduate of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College.

Monnat currently sits on the Kansas Association for Justice’ Board of Editors and is the Criminal Law Chair.  He has also been designated a Fellow of the Kansas Bar Foundation, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Litigation Counsel of America, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the American Board of Criminal Lawyers.

Monnat is a Life Member and past Board Member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and is a two-term past president of the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

A frequent national lecturer and editorial contributor on criminal defense topics, Monnat authored “Sentencing, Probation, and Collateral Consequences,” a chapter of the Kansas Bar Association’s Kansas Criminal Law Handbook, 4th edition.

  • Oct 25, 2013
  • KSNW TV

WICHITA  – A motions hearing tomorrow will determine whether or not the identity of a Crime Stoppers tipster can be revealed for the trial of an accused murderer.

The ruling could have a big impact on a successful crime fighting program in Wichita.

This past April, the body of 19 year-old Jordan Turner was found in a field in southeast Wichita.

Three people are charged with his murder: Ebony Nguyen, Erick Jackson and Kristoffer Wright.

A motion filed by the attorney representing Nguyen asks the state to disclose the name and contact information for their confidential Crime Stoppers informant.

“The problem with every informant is what is their motivation? Is it to work off their own case? Their own crime?” asks criminal defense attorney Dan Monnat.

He says if the anonymous information is in the possession of the prosecutor, the prosecutor may have a duty to make the identity of the tipster known.

The catch here is that no one has that information.

“If we are subpoenaed for information and the judge allows it through the only thing they’re gonna get is gonna be info about the informant,” explains head of the Wichita Crime Commission Gordon Bassham.

Bassham says not even Crime Stoppers knows who that caller was.

And he says regardless – he’s not giving out the information.

“There’s a lot of case law not only from Kansas but around the country that will not allow that to happen,” assures Bassham. “It’s just a way to get information from Crime Stoppers and as I said we’re not going to let that happen.”

Monnat adds, as history dating back to World War II shows, a successful defense doesn’t have to rely on anonymous tipsters or informants.

“Their testimony or evidence was deemed inadmissible in court it’s really only since then that the use of informants has crescendoed to the level that it now exists,” explains Monnat.

KSN will be at that hearing Friday morning.

See video at KSN

KSNW TV