ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org


General News

Kansas Supreme Court Ruling: City Conviction Requires Sex Offender Registration

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a man’s municipal conviction for sexual battery requires him to register as a sex offender.

The 5-2 decision comes in the case of a man, who was convicted in 2018 of sexual battery in violation of the Shawnee municipal code.

At issue was whether he was required to register as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The Supreme Court ruled that he did, finding that the Shawnee ordinance is identical to the state statute.

Justices Melissa Standridge and Eric Rosen dissented, arguing the Legislature did not intend for the statute to apply to municipal prosecutions.

According to the ruling, he drove a taxi late at night with two female passengers. After dropping off the first one in Overland Park, he started toward Shawnee with the other, who had moved to the front seat at his request.

During the drive, Adem repeatedly asked her to go to a bar with him. She refused. He pulled the car over and three times tried to embrace her. He also rubbed her forearm and thigh in “a sexual nature.” She reported the incident to police the next morning.

Source and full story.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I can see this case going to the next level. Normally, states are given the presumptive self determination where Fed courts defer supremacy to the SC of each state to determine the interpretation of their own state law. But IMO, because the KSSC has ruled already, any flaw in the ruling( the minority pointed to one) could be the basis of a fed challenge. Was the defense made aware of the potential of state sex offender registration duty at the time of plea in city court? If not there IS an issue! Again I cite Padilla v Kentucky.

And further thoughts on Padilla..

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x