Lucas says KCPD photos in political mailers violated MO law, but critics reject claim

Ahead of a crucial statewide vote on Kansas City police funding, Mayor Quinton Lucas claimed Sunday that a political mailer that featured images of officers violated the law — an allegation vehemently rejected by a state senator who has repeatedly clashed with the mayor over law enforcement.

Lucas pointed to state laws that restrict the use of public resources for political activity.

A mailer promoting the re-election of state Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, a Parkville Republican, includes a picture of KCPD officers posing with the senator and Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Another picture shows the governor shaking hands with an officer.

The images come from a bill signing ceremony at police headquarters in June, when Parson signed into law legislation that raises the minimum percentage of general revenue Kansas City must spend on police from 20% to 25%. Missouri voters on Nov. 8 will decide whether to approve a change to the state constitution, known as Amendment 4, designed to allow the law to go into effect.

Kansas City’s police are controlled by a board of commissioners appointed almost entirely by the governor, with the exception of the mayor, who holds one seat — an arrangement dating back to 1939 that has long exasperated many local officials.

“Amendment 4 has nothing to do with our safety or officers and everything to do with advancing the careers of non-KC based Republican politicians. Proof is now in our mailboxes. Saddened to see a mailer violating the law. More disappointed KCPD played a role in this stunt. Vote No,” Lucas tweeted Sunday morning.

Lucas’ allegation centers in part on whether police knew the images from the ceremony would be used for political purposes, according to a brief analysis of state law by the mayor’s general counsel, Melesa Johnson, provided to The Star.

Luetkemeyer wasn’t involved in producing the mailer and others quickly noted that the images were in the public domain and emphasized that the ceremony had been an official event held by Parson. The image of Parson shaking hands appears identical to a picture posted by Parson’s official Facebook account after the ceremony. A Parson spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The mailer was paid for by Prosperous Missouri PAC, which is supporting Luetkemeyer’s candidacy. James Thomas III, a Kansas City attorney who is the PAC’s treasurer, declined to comment.

Even if Kansas City police knew images from the ceremony would later be used to promote a candidate, it’s far from clear whether Prosperous Missouri PAC would have broken the law in producing the mailer. The First Amendment offers broad protections for political speech and the state laws cited by Lucas’ office pertain to conduct by public officials and Kansas City police officers.

Marc Ellinger, a Jefferson City attorney who focuses on election and campaign finance law, in an interview struggled to find a potential violation of law by the mailer, based on his understanding that the images are in the public domain and were taken at an official event.

“I don’t see anything that using that picture is illegal,” Ellinger said.

Luetkemeyer, who helped spearhead efforts to place the police funding amendment on the ballot, said Lucas knows its passage would stop “any future radical attempts to defund the KCPD.”

In 2021 Lucas and the city council attempted to assert more control over the police budget. The plan sought by Lucas and the city council would have reallocated $42 million from the police budget to establish a Community Services and Prevention Fund. It would have funded the police department at the state-required 20% threshold, while allowing the city to control spending above that amount. A judge found the plan illegal.

“The mayor’s outburst on Twitter is just another example of him trying to desperately deflect from his illegal actions last year when he attempted to strip $42 million from the KCPD’s budget,” Luetkemeyer said in a statement.

In follow-up tweets, Lucas criticized the bill signing ceremony itself, which he called a “conservative political stunt” that police command asked officers to attend. Missouri law prohibits Kansas City police from political participation on the job.

Lucas wrote that he and the board of police commissioners president, Mark Tolbert, objected. Tolbert didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“I understand that there are some who would say, ‘well, yeah, this is just a photo of someone from an official event ... it was just a bill signing.’ I would say to you that actually at the board of police commissioners level there was a discussion about having this sort of event that did look more political than your typical bill signing,” Lucas said in an interview on Monday.

Kansas City police spokeswoman Donna Drake said in an email on Sunday that members of the department “posed for a photograph with elected officials as they often do no matter their political affiliation.”

“The Kansas City Missouri Police Department had no knowledge of the creation of this political mailer and it was done so without our permission,” wrote Drake, who didn’t respond to follow-up questions.

Johnson’s analysis focused on two laws — one that broadly restricts public resources from being used for political purposes and another that specifically restricts political activity by Kansas City police. The broad law makes a “purposeful violation” a misdemeanor.

In the case of the first law, Johnson indicated it matters whether police commissioners and officers knew candidates and those supporting them would use images from the bill signing to advance campaigns. She said the record suggests “this was the subject of some board debate” but that those who objected to the event were overruled.

Johnson, referring to the state law that prohibits on-the-job political activity by Kansas City police and the use of police buildings for political activity, wrote in her analysis that given a narrow reading of the law would appear to suggest “that if any political purpose—which exceeds mere campaign purpose—was understood to have occurred in any police building or room, then a violation has occurred.”

“What’s more, indirect attempts to coerce or influence are sufficient foundation for investigation,” Johnson wrote.

Lucas on Twitter drew a parallel between the officers’ appearance and an incident earlier this year in which David Loar, a police captain at the time, was investigated over his role in a ride-along for former Republican Gov. Eric Greitens, who used footage from the ride-along to promote his U.S. Senate campaign.

A special prosecutor declined to charge Loar, the son of Kansas City Councilwoman Teresa Loar. David Loar is no longer with the department, which has previously refused to say whether he resigned or was fired.

On Twitter, Lucas said he hoped KCPD would condemn the mailer and file an ethics complaint. “The Board should not let (the) PD be used as a partisan institution,” Lucas wrote.

Teresa Loar said in an interview on Monday that her son had been forced to retire, and had been told if he wanted to return to the KCPD he would be demoted, have his pay cut or possibly be fired. Loar said KCPD interim Chief Joseph Mabin should suspend every officer in the photos and investigate them or reinstate her son on his terms.

“If we’re going to treat one officer one way, we have to treat everybody equally,” Loar said.

Lucas’ tweets also came after another recent dispute over images of law enforcement appearing in political ads.

Last week, Legal Missouri 2022, the primary group advocating for legalized recreational marijuana in the state, unveiled a new ad that included video of a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper.

Although Legal Missouri said it had licensed the footage, the Highway Patrol sent the group a cease-and-desist letter, claiming the ad violated state law because it included the agency’s emblem, which is a registered service mark.

Legal Missouri on Friday said it had pulled the ads, though the First Amendment protected their contents.