A CHARTER ORDINANCE EXEMPTING THE CITY OF GARNETT, KANSAS, FROM K.S.A. 12-4411; PROVIDING SUBSTITUTE AND ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, PART OF WHICH MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE AMENDED BY SIMPLE RESOLUTION, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, WHICH SUBJECT DEALS WITH SUBPOENAS, WITNESSES EXPENSES, ABUSE OF SUBPOENAS AND COSTS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF GARNETT, KANSAS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GARNETT, KANSAS:
SECTION 1: The City of Garnett, Kansas, by the power vested in it by Article 12, Section 5 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, hereby elects to exempt itself from and make inapplicable to it the provisions of K.S.A. 12-4411, and to provide substitute and additional provisions as hereinafter set forth in this Charter Ordinance. K.S.A. 12-4411 is part of an enactment of the Legislature establishing a code of procedure for Municipal Courts, but the same is not and has by the Supreme Court of Kansas been held not to be uniformly applicable to all cities within the State.
SECTION 2: All parties to any case pending from time to time in the Municipal Court of the City of Garnett, Kansas, shall be entitled to the use of subpoenas to compel attendance of witnesses within the State. The Municipal Judge or clerk shall issue a subpoena which may be served by any law enforcement officer upon the named person. Disobedience may constitute contempt. Fees and mileage of witnesses shall be fixed by the City Commission from time to time by simple resolution and shall be established on the basis of a per diem, or any part thereof, for appearance at court and for a rate per mile to compensate the witness for miles actually driven. The fees and mileage thus determined for attendance of witnesses shall be borne by the party calling the witness, except that if an accused person is found not guilty, the City shall pay all such expenses; provided, however, the Municipal Judge may direct that fees and mileage of witnesses subpoenaed by the accused person be charged against such person if the Judge finds that there has been an abuse of the use of subpoenas by the accused person.
(10-25-1988)