Communications made in the application for or in the course of a sexual offender's
diagnosis and treatment in the program between a sexual offender or member of the
offender's family and any employee of the department who is assigned to work in the
program, or approved provider, as defined in KRS 17.500, shall be privileged from
disclosure in any civil or criminal proceeding, other than proceedings to determine the
sentence, unless the offender consents in writing to the disclosure or the communication
is related to an ongoing criminal investigation. The privilege created by this section shall
not extend to disclosures made for the purpose of determining whether the offender
should continue to participate in the program. The provisions of KRS 620.030 shall not
apply to a communication made, received, or overheard if the communication is made
pursuant to this section. The offender shall be informed in writing of the limits of the
privilege created in this section.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 23, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended
2000 Ky. Acts ch. 401, sec. 32, effective April 11, 2000. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts
ch. 211, sec. 67, effective July 14, 1992; and ch. 445, sec. 8, effective July 14, 1992.
-- Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 478, sec. 5, effective July 15, 1986.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case:
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002).
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002).
· cites it 2× “At least one State already offers such protection, see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 197.440 (West 2001) ("Communications made in the application for or in the course of a sexual offender's diagnosis and treatment .”
Welch v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 407 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Since we have decided the case on constitutional grounds, we need not address the parties' arguments pertaining to the applicability of KRS 197.440, KRS 635.527, and KRS 620.030(1).”
Lile v. McKune, 224 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2000).
“Code §§ 1012 , 1014 (governing confidentiality of patient-psychotherapist in sex offender treatment program); Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 197.440 (providing generally that admissions made within sex offender treatment program are privileged communications not subject to disclosure in…”
Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 488 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).
“to support perjury or other criminal charges against him. The Court concluded that [i]n view of the applicable statutes and authority, it is clear that [Razor’s] privilege against compelled self-incrimination was not violated by the sexual offender treatment program’s…”
Seymour v. Colebank, 179 S.W.3d 886 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“400 to KRS 197.440 require that the DOC operate a “specialized treatment program for sexual offenders.”
Razor v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d 472 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“” Moreover, KRS 197.440 specifically states: Communications made in the application for or in the course of a sexual offender’s diagnosis and treatment in the program between a sexual offender or member of the offender’s famñy and any employee of the department who is assigned…”
Com., Cabinet for Health & Fam. v. Chauvin, 316 S.W.3d 279 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 2× “576 (privilege for communications in sex offender presentence evaluations); KRS 197.440 (privilege for contents of sex offender treatment); KRS 214.”
Berg v. Commonwealth, 20 S.W.3d 475 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “All communications relative to the evaluation and treatment of the sex offender shall fall under the provisions of KRS 197.440 and shall not be made a part of the court record subject to review in appellate proceedings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.