Exception.
All information obtained in the discharge of official duty by any probation or parole
officer shall be privileged and shall not be received as evidence in any court. Such
information shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to any person other than the court,
board, cabinet, or others entitled under KRS 439.250 to 439.560 to receive such
information, unless otherwise ordered by such court, board or cabinet. Information shall
be made available to sex offender treatment programs operated or approved by the
Department of Corrections or the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and
Intellectual Disabilities who request the information in the course of conducting an
evaluation or treatment pursuant to KRS 439.265(6), 532.045(3), or 532.050(4).
Effective: July 12, 2012
History: Amended 2012 Ky. Acts ch. 146, sec. 118, effective July 12, 2012; and ch.
158, sec. 76, effective July 12, 2012. -- Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 401, sec. 10,
effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 300, sec. 1, effective July 15,
1996. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 344, sec. 50, effective July 15, 1982. --
Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 8, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1974
Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. V, sec. 24(14). -- Created 1956 Ky. Acts ch. 101, sec. 27,
effective May 18, 1956.
Legislative Research Commission Note (7/12/2012). This statute was amended by 2012
Ky. Acts chs. 146 and 158, which do not appear to be in conflict and have been
codified together.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case:
Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1981).
Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1981).
· cites it 9× “Tabor asserts this testimony is a violation of KRS 439.510. The other assertions of error are adequately disposed of by the Court of Appeals and do not merit further discussion.”
Henderson v. Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d 454 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “perts with regard to a defense of insanity and that the Commissioner of Corrections and his subordinate personnel were in possession of information concerning his past conduct which the consulting psychiatrists needed in order to assess his mental condition, but these officers…”
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…”
Wood v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.2d 765 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).
“” He also testified that KRS 439.510 “provides that any and all information obtained by the Probation Officer is absolutely privileged and ‘should not be disclosed directly or indirectly to any person’ unless ordered by the Court.”
Razor v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d 472 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“Indeed, KRS 439.510 states in pertinent part that “[a]ll information obtained in the discharge of official duty by any probation or parole officer shall be privileged and shall not be received as evidence in any court.”
Hurt v. Commonwealth, 333 S.W.2d 951 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960).
“By affidavit made a part of the bill of exceptions appellant’s counsel says that the report of the probation officer (supposedly confidential, per KRS 439.510) recommended probation. This is denied by counter-affidavit of the probation officer.”
Hayes v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 575 (Ky. 1981).
“He contends that permitting a parole officer to testify from records violates KRS 439.510 and cannot be allowed by the trial court.”
Commonwealth v. Bush, 740 S.W.2d 943 (Ky. 1987).
“The PSI is also made confidential by KRS 439.510, which states: “All information obtained in the discharge of official duty by any probation or parole officer shall be privileged.”
Aaron v. Commonwealth, 810 S.W.2d 60 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991).
“Impliedly under KRS 439.510, the Parole Board may review information prepared by a probation or parole officer such as a PSI report.”
Stopher v. Simpson (W.D. Ky. 2025).
· cites it 8× “) Second, Stopher moved to seal those records because they are presumptively confidential pursuant to KRS § 439.510. (DN 175.) Third, Stopher filed a renewed motion for evidentiary hearing and discovery in which he argued that while there was no need for an evidentiary hearing…”
David Wayne Bailey v. Shannon Jones (Ky. 2019).
“14 (b) Disclosure of evidence introduced at the hearing for purposes of proving the alleged grounds for revocation, except that that disclosure shall not be required of records or information: (i) protected from disclosure pursuant to KRS 439.510; (ii) if disclosure would reveal…”
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.