Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, first-degree possession of drug paraphernalia, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was found on his person and in his car following a sniff search by a narcotics-detection dog that was conducted after a routine traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the arresting officer prolonged the seizure and conducted the search in violation of Rodrigues and Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights; and (2) therefore, the fruits of that search must be suppressed. View "Davis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and alcohol intoxication in a public place. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the weapon seized at his arrest, arguing that the arresting officer lacked sufficient cause to arrest Appellant for alcohol intoxication and that the ensuing search of his person incident to the improper arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals upheld the validity of the arrest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant’s arrest for alcohol intoxication in a public place was unlawful because the offense was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer; and (2) therefore, the search conducted incident to that arrest was not valid, and the evidence obtained during the search should have been suppressed. View "Maloney v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After she was denied tenure, Plaintiff, a former faculty member of Northern Kentucky University, filed suit, alleging violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act for discriminatory employment practices on the basis of her gender. The trial court granted summary judgment for the University, concluding that Plaintiff failed to raise a prima facie claim for gender discrimination because she could not prove she was qualified for tenure and she failed to present evidence that she was treated differently from similarly situated male comparators. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the court of appeals employed an erroneous standard for reviewing Plaintiff’s claim. View "Bd. of Regents of N. Ky. Univ. v. Weickgenannt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder and four counts of first-degree criminal abuse. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s admission of evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts - namely, his history of domestic violence against his spouse - was not in error; (2) the admission of hearsay statements made to an examining pediatrician was not in error, and the admission of a detective’s hearsay testimony in violation of Appellant’s confrontation rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) improper closing statements made during the Commonwealth’s closing argument did not rise to the level of misconduct requiring reversal. View "Dickerson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Deborah Powell, the former women’s basketball coach at Asbury University, filed suit against the University, asserting claims of defamation, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The jury returned a verdict in the University’s favor on the defamation and discrimination claims but in Powell’s favor on the retaliation claim. The trial court awarded Powell damages and attorney's fees and costs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a claim of unlawful employer retaliation under Ky. Rev. Stat. 344.280(1) does not require an underlying violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act; (2) there was sufficient evidence to find unlawful retaliation; (3) the admission of opinion testimony by a former employee of the university that Powell’s conduct had been “wholly innocent” was harmless; (4) the University was not entitled to an employment-at-will jury instruction; (5) the University was not entitled to a new trial for alleged defects in the jury’s damages verdict; and (6) the award of attorneys’ fees and costs was not unreasonable. View "Asbury University v. Powell" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with multiple drug-related criminal offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence collected from his trailer, arguing that law enforcement officers unlawfully exceeded the scope of a warrantless knock and talk by entering the protected curtilage of his residence. The trial court denied the suppression motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to complicity to manufacture methamphetamine, complicity to possess marijuana, and complicity to possess drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the officers did not have the right to venture away from the front of Defendant’s house pursuant to a knock and talk and to invade the curtilage of Defendant’s residence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the totality of the factors set forth in United States v. Dunn, as well as the officers’ uncontroverted testimony, neither officer unlawfully encroached on the trailer’s curtilage. View "Commonwealth v. Dixon" on Justia Law

Laul Deng (“Aker”) sued his former employer, Norton Healthcare, Inc., for racial discrimination in terminating his employment. Specifically, Aker alleged that Norton’s failure to reinstate him after termination of his employment was retaliation for filing a pro se discrimination complaint. The trial court granted Norton summary judgment on all of Aker’s claims. Despite acknowledging that Aker never applied for any position with Norton, the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the futile-gesture doctrine excused the requirement that Aker show that he applied for a position in order to establish a prima facie claim for employment discrimination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in invoking the futile-doctrine theory sua sponte; and (2) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Norton as a matter of law. View "Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. Deng" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder for intentionally killing his parents and one count of tampering with physical evidence. Defendant was sentenced to a total of forty-five years’ imprisonment. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress Defendant’s confession made during protracted interrogation by sheriff’s detectives. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) Defendant’s confession was involuntarily extracted through interrogation techniques employed by law enforcement that were constitutionally unjustifiable; and (2) the trial court improperly excluded Defendant’s alternate perpetrator evidence at trial. View "Gray v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Council on Developmental Disabilities, Inc. filed a request with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services seeking information about the death of Gary Farris, a ward of the Commonwealth who was transferred from an institution to a community residence shortly before his death. The Cabinet denied the Council’s request, concluding that the records were confidential under Ky. Rev. Stat. 209.140 and that the Council did not qualify as an organization exempt from the confidentiality restrictions in that statute. The trial court upheld the denial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Council was not entitled to the requested information under either the Kentucky Open Records Act or section 209.140(3). View "Council on Developmental Disabilities, Inc. v. Cabinet for Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant was tried and convicted on the handgun charge. After his trial on this charge, Defendant filed a motion to suppress, his second such motion. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant was subsequently tried on the trafficking charge. During trial, the Commonwealth elicited testimony from a police officer about Defendant’s testimony at the second suppression hearing. Defendant did not object to this testimony but elected not to testify in his own defense. Defendant was subsequently convicted on the trafficking charge. The court of appeals reversed the trafficking conviction, concluding that the use of Defendant’s suppression-hearing testimony violated his right not to incriminate himself and that the error was palpable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the requirement of an objection is a substantive aspect of the constitutional rule that bars palpable error review, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in resorting to that review. View "Commonwealth v. Taylor" on Justia Law