Case Law & Resources: Kentucky
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Bell v. Com., 122 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Ky. 2003)
Whether defendant created a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death when he threw away a loaded firearm while fleeing from police.
​
Defendant discarded a loaded firearm while fleeing from a Lexington Police officer. The officer never unholstered his firearm. Defendant was found guilty by a jury for FIrst-Degree Fleeing or Evading Police.
​
The court also considered whether an officer would have had the right to employ deadly force under Tennessee v. Garner and KRS 503.090 as a way to further establish whether the defendant's armed flight posed a substantial risk of death as required for conviction under that crime. Under KRS 503.090, the arresting officer must believe the person being arrested “is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay” to merit the use of deadly force.
Holding
No; merely discarding a weapon while fleeing police was not enough evidence to create a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death because (1) the defendant never pointed or fired the weapon at the pursuing officer, and (2) there was no evidence that the officer believed he was authorized to use deadly force under KRS 503.090(2)(b).
​
Reference to KRS 503.090, Use of Deadly Force.
Crayton v. Com., 2014 WL 2811316, at *2–3 (Ky. June 19, 2014)
Whether defendant created a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death when he fired his gun at the pursuing officer while fleeing from police.
​
An officer responding to an armed robbery call observed the respondent nearby counting money. He matched the suspect description given. After ordering the respondent to place his hands behind his head, the respondent attempted to flee. The officer followed with his gun drawn. A chase ensued in which the respondent fired 4 times at the pursuing officer. He got away until another officer located, tazed, and arrested him.
Yes; the court affirmed respondent's First-Degree Fleeing or Evading Police conviction because unlike the defendant in Bell v. Com., the defendant here actually fired at the pursuing officer who then returned fire.
​
Reference to KRS 520.95, Fleeing or Evading the Police in the First Degree.
Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, 165 F. Supp. 3d 563, 583 (W.D. Ky. 2016), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom.
​
Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green, 679 F. App'x 419 (6th Cir. 2017) (reversed in part on other grounds).
Whether a police officer had probable cause to believe the use of deadly force was necessary.
​
An officer responded to a 911 call in which Greg Harrison said he was going to kill his brother. The officer found the suspect visibly intoxicated and refused to comply with officer requests to show his hands or get on the ground. After a few minutes of trying to subdue Harrison with verbal commands, Harrison started saying "momma please forgive me". Harrison had called 91 dispatch himself that evening more than once and had told them he had a gun. Harrison never removed his hand from his pocket or attacked or threatened anyone. The officer shot Harrison from approximately 72 feet away. He died from his injuries and his estate brought a claim against the city.
The use of deadly force is only privileged when defendant believes it necessary for self-defense. That standard was not met in this case.
No; the court determined that based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer did not have probable cause to believe the suspect the offic shot posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to others. Shooting a suspect who merely did not comply with an officer's command (but otherwise did not actively resist arrest) was an unreasonable use of force by the police officer.
​
Reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 4th Amendment and KRS 503.050(2): Self-defense privilege.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
The article reviewed de-escalation training policies across states and found that Kentucky state law does not require de-escalation training.
Relevant Excerpt
N/A
The article reviewed local law enforcement training and found that the LMPD (Lousiville Metro Police Department) had 16 hours of de-escalation training as part of its 40 hour annual training requirement in 2019.
N/A
The Frankfort Police Chief said in the interview that the Frankfort Police Department already trains officers on de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention to avoid possibly deadly outcomes.
N/A
A 40-hour course on a use of force continuum which clarifies the appropriate force level for every level of resistance.olice Department already trains officers on de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention to avoid possibly deadly outcomes.
N/A
A 40-hour course which trains law enforcement officers how to safely and effectively interact with persons with psychiatric disabilities and includes verbal de-escalation techniques.
N/A
The Louisville Mayor announced a government contract with Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a non-profit company, to perform a top-down review of Louisville Metro Police Department and training in use of force.
N/A