Department of CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING CASE LAW UPDATES Kentucky Court of Appeals 2020 Kentucky Supreme Court 2020 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 2020 U.S. Supreme Court 2019-2020 Term The following are brief summaries of published opinions issued by the following courts: Kentucky Supreme Court (January through December 2020) Kentucky Court of Appeals (January through December 2020) Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (January through September 2020) United States Supreme Court (2020). These summaries are designed as a study and reference tool for officers in training classes. Although care has been taken to make these summaries as accurate as possible, official copies should be consulted when possible before taking any actions that may have legal consequences. For a full copy of any of the opinions summarized below, please visit: Kentucky Supreme Court: https://kycourts.gov/Courts/Supreme-Court/Pages/default.aspx Kentucky Court of Appeals: https://kycourts.gov/Courts/Court-of-Appeals/Pages/default.aspx United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ The issues, arguments and summaries that appear in each summary are only the opinions of the compilers of the listed summary. They are only meant to be used for guidance, are not offered as legal opinions, and should not be relied upon or cited as legal authority for any action. Always consult legal counsel when in doubt about the meaning of a statute or opinion of a court of law. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS ….………………..4 ASSET FORFEITURE ….……………………………………………………………………………............4 COURT PROCEEDINGS – HANDCUFFING ….………………………………………………………..5 EVIDENCE ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY .…………………………………………………………………………10 INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS ……………………………………………………………..11 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 189A DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE .…………………………………………………………………..16 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 218A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ……………………………………………………………………………19 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 506 INCHOATE OFFENSES …………………………………………………………………………………….21 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 507 HOMICIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 508 ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES …………………………………………………………………25 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES – CHAPTER 520 ESCAPE AND OTHER OFFENSES ………………………………………………………………………26 OPEN RECORDS ………………………………………………………………………………………………31 TH RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL/6 AMENDMENT ……………………………………………………..34 SEARCH AND SEIZURE ……………………………………………………………………………………..35 SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION ……………………………………………………………………………….52 2 USE OF FORCE – SELF-DEFENSE ……………………………………………………………………….57 SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS …………………………………………………………………57 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ……………………………………………………………………………………57 A. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT ………………………………57 B. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ……………………………………………61 C. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION ……………………………………………………….65 ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL ACT ……………………………………………………………………….66 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ASSAULT ………………………………………………….68 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ARSON …………………………………………………….68 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ASSET FORFEITURE ………………………………….69 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE ………………………………………………..71 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – FIREARMS ……………………………………………….73 MIRANDA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….75 SEARCH AND SEIZURE ……………………………………………………………………………………..76 SEXUAL OFFENSES …………………………………………………………………………………………. 88 THREATS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………89 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ………………………………………………………………………………………………90 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT …………………………………………………………………141 3 KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT AND KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS JANUARY – DECEMBER 2020 ASSET FORFEITURE Lee v. Commonwealth, 606 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. App. 2020) FACTS: On August 23, 2011, Louisville Metro Police executed a search warrant for Lee’s residence and seized $3,500 in cash, pills and marijuana. The same day, police also searched Lee’s business and seized $2,210 in cash, pills, empty prescriptions bottles and a scale. The Jefferson County Grand Jury indicted Lee on one count of tampering with physical evidence, one count of second-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (hydrocodone), and on count of possession of an illegal substance (marijuana). On February 10, 2014, Lee entered a guilty plea to the charges under a plea agreement with the Commonwealth. On that same date, the circuit court entered an order forfeiting the $3,5000 seized from Lee’s residence. On September 16, 2019, Lee filed a motion with the circuit court for the return of the $2,210 seized from his business, arguing that he never agreed to forfeit the money seized from his business. The Commonwealth acknowledged that it was unaware that money was seized from the business location, and that the 2014 forfeiture order did not reference these funds. However, the Commonwealth asserted that Lee forfeited the $2,210 under the language of his plea agreement, even though the forfeiture order did not reference anything seized from the business. The circuit court denied Lee’s motion. Subsequently, the Commonwealth provided Lee with supplemental discovery, including a police voucher, which stated police seized $2,210, pills, an empty prescription bottle, and a scale from Lee’s business. Lee filed another motion for the return of the $2,210 that was seized from the business, arguing that he was never charged with any crime stemming from the search of his business, and the plea agreement referenced only those crimes committed at Lee’s residence. The circuit court denied this motion. This appeal followed: ISSUES: 1. May a criminal defendant voluntarily agree to forfeit personal property without a hearing? 2. Must the trial court hold a forfeiture hearing concerning personal property subject to forfeiture that a criminal defendant does not explicitly agree to forfeit? 4 3. Is a conviction of a criminal offense a prerequisite for asset forfeiture? HOLDINGS: 1. Yes. A criminal defendant may voluntarily agree to forfeit personal property without a hearing.1 2. Yes. If a criminal defendant does not voluntarily agree to forfeit personal property that is subject to forfeiture, the trial court is required to conduct a forfeiture hearing under KRS 218A.410 and KRS 218A.460, which define property subject to forfeiture, burdens of proof, and forfeiture procedures. In this case, the record is clear that Lee was charged with crimes in connection with property seized from his residence and the forfeiture order clearly states that Lee forfeits the funds seized at the residence. Nothing in the record addresses the search of Lee’s business. Because the plea agreement was silent as to the money seized from Lee’s business, and there is nothing in the plea agreement indicating that Lee voluntarily forfeited that money, the circuit court is required to hold a forfeiture hearing. 3. No. Although the record indicates Lee was not charged and convicted of a crime in connection with the property seized from his business, the property may still be subject to forfeiture. Nothing in KRS 218A requires a criminal conviction, and it is sufficient to show a nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and its use to facilitate violation of the Controlled Substances Act.2 The Commonwealth bears the initial burden of proof and must make a prima facie case by showing “slight evidence of traceability,” some evidence that the currency or some portion of it had been used or was intended to be used in a drug transaction.3 If the Commonwealth establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence.4 The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court for a forfeiture hearing. COURT PROCEEDINGS – HANDCUFFING Mulazim v. Commonwealth, 600 S.W.3d 183 (Ky. 2020) FACTS: After the jury verdict was read acquitting Canada of murder, Canada raised his arms while his co-defendant, Mulazim, hit the defense table three times. This conduct occurred despite the trial court’s command prior to the reading of the verdicts that all present in the courtroom were to remain calm and exercise restraint. As both defendants were convicted of other offenses, the trial court ordered them remanded to the custody of the Fayette County 1 Commonwealth v. Shirley, 140 S.W.3d 593 (Ky. App. 2004). 2 Osborne v. Commonwealth, 839 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Ky. 1992). 3 Gritton v. Commonwealth, 477 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Ky. App. 2015). 4 Id. 5 Detention Center. The next day, the trail court refused to remove the ankle shackles on both defendants for the penalty phase of trial due to their in-court behavior. The jury did not see either defendant walk into the courtroom in shackles and it was unlikely that the jury observed the shackles while both defendants were seated. ISSUE: Is handcuffing/shackling a defendant during a trial’s penalty phase appropriate absent extraordinary circumstances? HOLDING: No. “Shackling of a defendant in a jury trial is allowed only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances.”5 Disfavor of the practice is also reflected in RCr 8.28(5), which states that “[e]xcept for good cause shown the judge shall not permit the defendant to be seen by the jury in shackles or other devices for physical restraint.” When reviewing a trial court’s decision to keep a defendant in shackles in the presence of the jury, we give great deference to the trial court.6 However, there