Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of cocaine discovered after a dog sniff of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger, holding that the stop was extended, and that extension was not justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion.Defendant was charged with first-degree possession of cocaine. He pled not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that he was illegally detained and that the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to call the dog. The trial court determined that it was a valid stop and that the evidence should not be suppressed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the traffic stop was extended; (2) the Commonwealth failed to establish simultaneous missions that permitted the seizure; and (3) the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing reasonable, articulable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Clayborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a drug dog sniff search during a traffic stop of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger, holding that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress.In reversing the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, the court of appeals concluded that the investigating officer unconstitutionally extended the duration of the traffic stop to accommodate the dog-sniff search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to establish that the extension of the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Conner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop in this case was extended, and the extension was not justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion.Defendant was charged with first-degree possession of cocaine. Defendant pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence of cocaine, claiming that he was illegally detained and the the police did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to call for a K-9 unit to come and search the scene. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the initial stop was valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no reasonable articulable suspicion existed to permit the K-9 unit search and that the search unconstitutionally extended the traffic stop, in violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. View "Commonwealth v. Clayborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the constitutionality of the 2018 amendment to Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(4), which terminates workers' compensation income benefits when the recipient reaches the age of seventy or four years from the date of injury or last injurious exposure, holding that the statute is constitutional.Plaintiffs brought separate appeals arguing that the amendment (1) was unconstitutional under the state and federal Equal Protection Clauses because it discriminates based on the income-benefit recipient's age, and (2) was unconstitutional special legislation because it applied only to older income-benefits recipients. The court of appeals upheld the constitutionality of the statute's age classification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly rejected the constitutional challenges to the statute. View "Cates v. Kroger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the 2018 amendment to Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(4), holding that the statutory amendment did not violate the Contracts Clause of the federal and state constitutions.The statutory amendment at issue terminates workers' compensation income benefits when the recipient of the benefits reaches the age of seventy or four years from the date of injury or last injurious exposure, whoever occurs last. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the amendment. The court of appeals held that the amendment did not violate the Contracts Clause of the state and federal constitutions and that the statute was reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 2018 amendment did not violate the Contracts Clause of the Federal or Kentucky Constitutions. View "Dowell v. Matthews Contracting" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting a temporary injunction against implementation of House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, which the General Assembly enacted during the 2021 regular session and which amended the Governor's power to respond to emergencies, as granted in Ky. Rev. Stat. 39A, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.The Governor and the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed this declaratory action seeking a declaration that the recently-passed legislation unconstitutionally infringed on the Governor's executive powers under the Kentucky Constitution. The circuit court temporarily enjoined implementation of the challenged legislation. Thereafter, the Governor sought modification of the temporary injunction to cover HJR 77, to which the Attorney General objected. The circuit court granted the request and put on hold the implementation of HJR 77 as well. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case presented a justiciable case or controversy; and (2) the temporary injunction was not warranted. View "Cameron v. Beshear" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the amendments that the legislature made in 2017 to Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 109 to give home rule cities located in a county containing a consolidated local government certain rights with respect to the waste management district in the county did not comply with the requirement of Kentucky Constitution Section 156a.At issue on appeal was whether the legislature's amendment to Chapter 109 in HB 246 (the Act) complied with the requirement of Section 156a, which permits the legislature to classify cities on certain bases but requires that all legislation relating to cities with a certain classification shall apply equally to all cities within the same classification. The circuit court concluded that the balance of Act was unconstitutional. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Act violated Kentucky Constitution Section 156a. View "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Waste Management District v. Jefferson County League of Cities, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting Defendant of complicity to murder and tampering with physical evidence, holding the trial court did not err in admitting unreacted out-of-court statements in which Defendant's co-defendant incriminated herself and Defendant to a cellmate who testified at trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in ruling that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the co-defendant's out-of-court statements to her cellmate were not testimonial and sufficient corroboration otherwise supported the admissibility of the statements; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a jail phone call of Defendant; and (3) the Commonwealth's Attorney improperly questioned a witness, but the error did not render Defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. View "Fisher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury instructions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Kentucky or the United States Constitutions; (2) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of two counts of first-degree sodomy; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Commonwealth's attorney vouching during closing argument for the victim's truthfulness. View "Towe v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of first-degree and second-degree arson and six counts of attempted murder, of which four were charged as hate crimes, holding that Defendant was denied a fair trial when the Commonwealth, aware of Defendant's intoxication during her arrest, opposed the intoxication defense instructions and implied to the jury that Defendant was not intoxicated.On appeal, Defendant argued that six trial errors required reversal, either individually or cumulatively. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutorial misconduct was flagrant enough to render the trial fundamentally unfair, simultaneously leading the jury to conclude facts contrary to the known facts and depriving Defendant of an ability to present her defense. The Court held that this one error was enough to require reversal but also addressed Defendant's remaining allegations of error, concluding that there were multiple errors in this case. View "Brafman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law