Public Complaint No. 1663534593 - 831531618

On August 19th, 2022 at approximately 6:30 p.m., Wakeeney Police Officer Ernie O’Bannon, was dispatched to 533 North 6th Street, within the City of WaKeeney, Trego County, and the State of Kansas for a report of a disturbance between neighbors. Information provided to Officer O’Bannon while responding to the call was that a neighbor had been firing illegal fireworks/firecrackers at a dog in the yard of 533 N 6th Street. It is further mentioned that Tina Marie Lentz had only been home for approximately 10 minutes when she witnessed the neighbor discharging the illegal fireworks at her dogs, who had inside the house the entire day. Police Officer O’Bannon would interview both the reporting party (Tina Marie Lentz) and the neighbor listed in the dispute. Officer O’Bannon would soon after leave the scene for approximately 30-45 minutes, before he would return. Upon his return at 7:30 p.m., he would advise the reporting party, Tina Marie Lentz, that he was going to place her under arrest for Disorderly Conduct. It is further mentioned that Tina Marie Lentz was not confrontational at any time with the officer or neighbor in which she had waged the complaint against. Tina Marie Lentz was then required to go to the Trego County Sheriff’s Office, where she would be later released on a OR Bond (Own Recognize Bond) and issued a Notice to Appear in Court on September 7th , 2022 at 12:00 p.m. Officer O’Bannon would formally charge Tina Marie Lentz with K.S.A. 21-6203 – Disorderly Conduct, a simple class C Misdemeanor. It is hereby contested that Officer O’Bannon committed Perjury and in effect made a physical arrest of Tina Marie Lentz in clear violation of K.S.A. 22-2401 – Arrest by Law Enforcement Officers and an illegal detention and deliberate defiance of the arrest powers entrusted in certified law enforcement officers. That Kansas Statute is cited below: 22-2401. Arrest by law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer may arrest a person under any of the following circumstances: (a) The officer has a warrant commanding that the person be arrested (b) The officer has probable cause to believe that a warrant for the person's arrest has been issued in this state or in another jurisdiction for a felony committed therein. (c) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed: (1) A felony; or (2) a misdemeanor, and the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that: (A) The person will not be apprehended or evidence of the crime will be irretrievably lost unless the person is immediately arrested; (B) the person may cause injury to self or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or (C) the person has intentionally inflicted bodily harm to another person. (D) Any crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the person in the officer's view. History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2401; L. 1984, ch. 127, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 39, § 37; L. 1996, ch. 214, § 29; July 1 It is further contested that the police officer did not have the fundamental rights to affect an arrest in regards to the required elements provided through K.S.A. 22-2401 (Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes, 1996). These being listed and argued below: (1) Arrest was not a felony and did not meet the elements of physical arrest / detention (2) The offense was a misdemeanor and this is uncontested. However, the following four sub provisions were not met by the police officer in regards to the physical arrest. a. “The person will not be apprehended or evidence of the crime will be irretrievably lost unless the person is immediately arrested.” It is contested that Officer O’Bannon had arrived on scene after the initial call, but then left the scene for a period of time, with no officers remaining at the scene to secure the suspect or preserve physical evidence in which would have be potentially destroyed. So it is contested that there was no actual fear of physical destruction of evidence and that since the suspect lived at that address, there was not fear she would leave and make apprehension difficult. When Officer O’Bannon left the scene, he demonstrated that he did not feel there would be a loss of physical evidence as a result of him leaving, and did not recognize a concern that he would not be able to locate Tina Marie Lentz to later arrest her. b. “The person may cause injury to self or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or” It is contested that this would not have been reasonable for an arrest as there was no allegations of physical harm from Tina Lentz, and she made no indication there would be physical harm. Tina Marie Lentz had simply witnessed the neighbor discharge illegal fireworks at her dogs, after letting those dogs go outside when she arrived home from work. She then came back into her dwelling and called 911 to assist her with the harassment of the neighbor. Calling 911 does not constitute a threat to another to cause harm, even in the event that it would lead to the arrest of another. c. “The person has intentionally inflicted bodily harm to another person.” This is contested as a reason to physical arrest Tina Marie Lentz, as there was never a threat that she would inflict intentional bodily harm to the neighbor, or officer’s. d. “Any crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the person in the officer's view” This is contested as the officer was not present at ANY time, and had not been present during the occurrence of such alleged crime, of the disorderly conduct. This alone constitutes that Police Officer Ernie O’Bannon made an arrest, on a class C Misdemeanor without legal, constitutional right to make a physical detention. It is also declared that Police Officer O’Bannon furthermore committed one intentional act of K.S.A. 44- 1039 –Perjury, by affirming, declaring and subscribing to the WaKeeney Municipal Court, that he held the rights given to him, under the direction of K.S.A. 22-2401 – Rights of Law enforcement Officers to Make an Arrest, when he placed Tina Marie Lentz under arrest for K.S.A. 21-6203 – Disorderly Conduct. As previously argued, Officer O’Bannon violated the Tina Marie Lentz United States Constitution Rights as granted to her under the 4th Amendment in which she became a victim of the abuse of power by Officer O’Bannon. It is furthermore argued that Officer O’Bannon would commit Perjury, as defined by K.S.A. 44-1039 by affirming by arrest, declaring that his arrest was constitutional under fictitious reasons, which clearly are in violation of his arresting powers granted to him under Kansas state law. By supplying the affidavit to the WaKeeney Municipal Court and the WaKeeney Municipal Attorney, he swore under oath that the information provided in his report to the court, especially pertaining to the physical arrest, was accurate and correct. K.S.A. 44-1039 – Unlawful Act; Perjury - is affirming, declaring or subscribing to any material fact upon any oath or affirmation required by the Kansas act against discrimination shall be deemed guilty of perjury (Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes, 2021) It is believed that Police Officer O’Bannon effective the arrest of Tina Marie Lentz as he was aware that by her providing fingerprints, and a booking photograph to the Trego County Sheriff’s Office would result in a Kansas Arrest Disposition being instantly created. Meaning that this arrest will remain on Tina Marie Lentz’s criminal arrest record as a permanent record, rather she is convicted of the charge or is found not guilty. Which clearly demonstrates his blatant abuse of power to insure that this disorderly conduct would become a permanent criminal record on her NCIC (National Crime Information Center) Criminal History, thus effecting her ability to gain housing, educational loans, or employment. Tina Lentz had soon after the arrest filed a Motion to Dismiss (attached to this report) and filed it with the City of WaKeeney Municipal Courts. On September 16th, 2022, Tina Lentz got a envelope from the WaKeeney municipal Courts, advising that Judge Richard Flax upheld her argument and dismissed the case without prejudice. It is impairative to mention that the only argument waged in teh motion to Dismiss was based solely on Officer O'Bannions illegal arrest in vioaltion of teh 4th qamenedement as well as State of Kansas Statute 21-2401, which clearly layout the reasons for a arrest to be made. Of all the possible choices to effect an arrest, he was unable to provide a factual basis that his arrest was non-other than to intimidate Tina Lentz and and whereas abuse his arrest powers granted through his State of Kansas Peace Officers Standards in Training Certification. It is also mentioned that Officer O'Bannion had successfully completed the law enforcement academy prior to the arrest, in which he attended the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center in Hutchinson, KS