good faith exception in Kentucky

2024Id. -12- “A public agency’s mere refusal to furnish records based on a good faith claim of a statutory exemption, which is later determined to be incorrect, is insufficient to establish a willful violation of the Act.” Bowling v. Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government, 172 S.W.3d 333, 343 (Ky. 2005) (citation omitted).

2024Id. -12- “A public agency’s mere refusal to furnish records based on a good faith claim of a statutory exemption, which is later determined to be incorrect, is insufficient to establish a willful violation of the Act.” Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 172 S.W.3d 333, 343 (Ky. 2005) (citation omitted).

2023The trial court serves an important evidentiary-screening function to ensure that, to the extent possible, only relevant evidence is admitted.5 Moreover, even in the context of relevant evidence, the trial court has a duty to balance the potential for undue prejudice against the probative worth of proffered evidence.6 Here, the trial court abdicated its gatekeeping role by allowing the jury to hear presentation of a wide range of other-incidents evidence without making any determination until near the end of the trial on whether the other instances were substantially similar to the accident un

2022The trial court serves an important evidentiary-screening function to ensure that, to the extent possible, only relevant evidence is admitted.5 Moreover, even in the context of relevant evidence, the trial court has a duty to balance the potential for undue prejudice against the probative worth of proffered evidence.6 3 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000). 5 See, e.g., Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007) (acknowledging “the trial court’s unique role as gatekeeper of evidence”); Dunnaway v. Commonwealth,

2023The trial court serves an important evidentiary-screening function to ensure that, to the extent possible, only relevant evidence is admitted.5 Moreover, even in the context of relevant evidence, the trial court has a duty to balance the potential for undue prejudice against the probative worth of proffered evidence.6 Here, the trial court abdicated its gatekeeping role by allowing the jury to hear presentation of a wide range of other-incidents evidence without making any determination until near the end of the trial on whether the other instances were substantially similar to the accident un

2022The trial court serves an important evidentiary-screening function to ensure that, to the extent possible, only relevant evidence is admitted.5 Moreover, even in the context of relevant evidence, the trial court has a duty to balance the potential for undue prejudice against the probative worth of proffered evidence.6 3 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000). 5 See, e.g., Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007) (acknowledging “the trial court’s unique role as gatekeeper of evidence”); Dunnaway v. Commonwealth,

2022In Marshall v. Commonwealth, we held “[a] trial court cannot merely rely on the Commonwealth's assurances of unavailability in deciding to admit hearsay evidence that is conditioned upon unavailability.” 60 S.W.3d 513, 519 (Ky. 2001).

2021In Marshall v. Commonwealth, we held “[a] trial court cannot merely rely on the Commonwealth's assurances of unavailability in deciding to admit hearsay evidence that is conditioned upon unavailability.” 60 S.W.3d 513, 519 (Ky. 2001).

2012In other words, a technical violation of the Act is not enough; the existence of bad faith is required.” Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 343 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Sinha, 284 S.W.3d at 162 (“In order to show that the University’s actions were willful, Sinha was required to show that the University acted in bad faith with an intent to violate the Open Records Act and without plausible explanation for the alleged errors.”); Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 135-36 (Ky.App.2002).

2005See Blair v. Hendricks, 30 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Ky.App.2000), overruled on other grounds by Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 135-36 (Ky.App.2002).

2021Alternatively, the Commonwealth argued that even if the search warrant was invalid, the officers who executed it reasonably relied on it; therefore, the evidence recovered from the residence should be admissible pursuant to the good faith exception found in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.1412. -4- A hearing on the motions to suppress was held on February 28, 2020, and Officer Messinger was the only witness to testify.

2021Alternatively, the Commonwealth argued that even if the search warrant was invalid, the officers who executed it reasonably relied on it; therefore, the evidence recovered from the residence should be admissible pursuant to the good faith exception found in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.1412. -4- A hearing on the motions to suppress was held on February 28, 2020, and Officer Messinger was the only witness to testify.

2025The Supreme Court of Kentucky applied this exception in Crayton v. Commonwealth, 846 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1992), determining the good faith exception did not violate Section 10 of Kentucky’s Constitution.

2023In Leon, the Supreme Court announced a good-faith exception to the general rule that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused, which was subsequently adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Crayton v. Commonwealth, 846 S.W.2d 684 (1992).

2014In support, the Commonwealth- leans heavily on Davis v. United States, which held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows for the admission- of evidence obtained as a result of an Objectively reasonable reliance on “binding appellate precedent.” — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2014In support, the Commonwealth- leans heavily on Davis v. United States, which held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows for the admission- of evidence obtained as a result of an Objectively reasonable reliance on “binding appellate precedent.” — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2022The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused.78 The rule extends not only to the evidence immediately discovered in the illegal search (Reed’s real-time CSLI, in this case) but also to the “indirect products of official misconduct” (the weapon discovered in Reed’s vehicle during the traffic stop, in this case).79 This rule is a court-created remedy rather than an independent constitutional right.80 There are several established exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the independent-source doctrine,81 the inevitabl

1986U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984); Segura v. U.S., 468 U.S. 796 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984).

1983These issues must be resolved on a motion for a directed verdict or upon a jury verdict after a plenary trial on the merits and after application of the good faith standard established in Crest Coal Company, Inc. v. Bailey, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 425 (1980).

1983These issues must be resolved on a motion for a directed verdict or upon a jury verdict after a plenary trial on the merits and after application of the good faith standard established in Crest Coal Company, Inc. v. Bailey, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 425 (1980).

2025Moreover, we agree with the circuit court that Trooper Davis acted in good faith, and we further agree with the Commonwealth that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule serves as an independent basis for denying suppression.3 The exclusionary rule holds that “unlawfully obtained evidence and the fruits resulting therefrom are inadmissible in criminal proceedings.” Parker v. Commonwealth, 440 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Ky. 2014).

2025And, although Kentucky has yet to apply the specific good faith exception articulated in Krull, “we have consistently interpreted Section 10 of our state Constitution in congruence with the Fourth Amendment regarding the application of both rights and remedies.” Parker, 440 S.W.3d at 387 .

2024“An Alford plea is a ‘plea of guilty,’ regardless of any denial of underlying facts, and clearly constitutes a criminal conviction.” Pettiway v. Commonwealth, 860 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky. 1993). -13- The dilemma from the court’s perspective was this: “I’m clearly struggling with the notion of: (A) what the Court of Appeals asked me to do, and [(B)] the effect of the guilty plea with regard to this good faith analysis which is what I believe the Court of Appeals asked me to do.” (VR 10:36:00–10:36:09) (emphasis added).

2023Moore, 159 S.W.3d at 328 (citations omitted). “[W]hen assessing the objective good faith of police executing a warrant, we must look to the totality of the circumstances, including any information known to the officer but not presented to the issuing magistrate.” Id. (citing United States v. Simpkins, 914 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1990)).

2023Moore, 159 S.W.3d at 328 (citations omitted). “[W]hen assessing the objective good faith of police executing a warrant, we must look to the totality of the circumstances, including any information known to the officer but not presented to the issuing magistrate.” Id. (citing United States v. Simpkins, 914 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1990)).

2022The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused.78 The rule extends not only to the evidence immediately discovered in the illegal search (Reed’s real-time CSLI, in this case) but also to the “indirect products of official misconduct” (the weapon discovered in Reed’s vehicle during the traffic stop, in this case).79 This rule is a court-created remedy rather than an independent constitutional right.80 There are several established exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the independent-source doctrine,81 the inevitabl

2022The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused.78 The rule extends not only to the evidence immediately discovered in the illegal search (Reed’s real-time CSLI, in this case) but also to the “indirect products of official misconduct” (the weapon discovered in Reed’s vehicle during the traffic stop, in this case).79 This rule is a court-created remedy rather than an independent constitutional right.80 There are several established exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the independent-source doctrine,81 the inevitabl

2022The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused.78 The rule extends not only to the evidence immediately discovered in the illegal search (Reed’s real-time CSLI, in this case) but also to the “indirect products of official misconduct” (the weapon discovered in Reed’s vehicle during the traffic stop, in this case).79 This rule is a court-created remedy rather than an independent constitutional right.80 There are several established exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the independent-source doctrine,81 the inevitabl

2022The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not admissible against the accused.78 The rule extends not only to the evidence immediately discovered in the illegal search (Reed’s real-time CSLI, in this case) but also to the “indirect products of official misconduct” (the weapon discovered in Reed’s vehicle during the traffic stop, in this case).79 This rule is a court-created remedy rather than an independent constitutional right.80 There are several established exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the independent-source doctrine,81 the inevitabl

2022The trial court serves an important evidentiary-screening function to ensure that, to the extent possible, only relevant evidence is admitted.5 Moreover, even in the context of relevant evidence, the trial court has a duty to balance the potential for undue prejudice against the probative worth of proffered evidence.6 3 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000). 5 See, e.g., Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007) (acknowledging “the trial court’s unique role as gatekeeper of evidence”); Dunnaway v. Commonwealth,

2014E.g., State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1053 (1993); State v. Oakes, 157 Vt. 171 , 598 A.2d 119 (1991); Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 , 586 A.2d 887 (1991).

2014E.g., State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1053 (1993); State v. Oakes, 157 Vt. 171 , 598 A.2d 119 (1991); Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 , 586 A.2d 887 (1991).