Excellent Information Concerning Search and Seizures, Open Carry and More!

[KYGlockster]

I was given some manuals at work recently and discovered that they are all available on-line as well. This is an extensive gathering of information developed by the Department of Criminal Justice for peace officers to use when working their law-enforcement obligations. This information should be read by all individuals that want to know what is truly allowed in law-enforcement. In the manuals located below, you will find case law from the SCOTUS and the KSC, as well as relevant case law from other Kentucky courts and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. All of this information has been combined and placed in different must-read manuals for all peace officers, and it should also be read by all individuals so they know what the courts have allowed peace officers to do and what they have prohibited them from doing.

I do not agree with some of what I have read thus far, but it has been decided by the SCOTUS and until it is reversed it is the law of the land. Enjoy!

All of these documents are contained on a single page here:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/


Here is the gathering of case law for open carry in Kentucky. This is taught to ALL peace officers in Kentucky, which makes one wonder why they continue to violate the rights of open carriers:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarryingv2.pdf


Contained here is the most thorough combination of case law I have ever seen for both the state and federal levels. This is a long read, but well worth it. I have learned tons from this manual:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/CasebookSS-0709090827.pdf


Here you will find 2013 case law updates concerning the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/FirstQuarter2013.pdf


Here is the Kentucky Criminal Law Manual, which is the most comprehensive manual available to peace officers:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/KCLM2013-130619.pdf


Here is a patrol manual, which contains the statutes and other information for the problems peace officers are most likely to deal with:
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/PatrolHandbook2012120828.pdf

 

[BB62]

Excellent resource!!

 

[KYGlockster]

Yes it is most excellent. I hope everyone takes advantage of this information because it could be invaluable to everyone -- whether they carry a firearm or not.

Please be aware that all of this information is not intended just for Kentucky. There are pages upon pages of information that could be useful to anyone from any state.

Know your rights; know the law; know what the Supreme Court of this country has allowed and disallowed and what they have found constitutional and unconstitutional.

Enjoy!

 

[DrakeZ07]

Where do I start... As facially helpful as these links, and 'guides' may be, the information contained within is hellishly suggestive that the person/agency that wrote the guidelines would relish in the idea of strict gun control measures. Further more, I'm not sure if its incompetence, or stupidity on the part of the DoJ, and the people who wrote one of the manuals, but the misrepresentation of laws, utter disregard of the English language in regards to spelling, and grammar, and the flimsy 'facts' in one such guide has left me without any faith in the state's capacity to comprehend Kentucky law in its basest of forms! No wonder cops, and LEAs still violate the rights of Kentucky citizens, an obviously anti-gun, anti-liberty, anti-citizen, and mentally deficient person wrote these guides!
----------------------------------------

In addition, an individual who the subject of an EPO or DVO will have their license to carry concealed suspended until such time as the order is terminated. (An officer in that situation may be permitted to carry concealed when on duty, but only when on duty; the statute suggests that they would not be permitted to carry concealed when off-duty, although normally, they would be permitted to do so.) It should be noted, however, that not every person who is the subject of a DVO will be prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law, but only those actually convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (usually Assault 4th Degree or Menacing).

[Last paragraph of the second page; https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarryingv2.pdf ]

So, cops can't carry concealed while off-duty, but normally its okay if they do it anyway... Awesome way to tell the equal protection under law clauses to "screw off". But hey, just because they can't do something, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it! Right Glockster? Oh, I forgot, you have me on ignore.
------------------------------------------------

KRS 237.110 also lists the locations where a permit holder may not carry concealed, but again, does not clearly resolve the question of whether they may carry openly. Such locations include, but are not limited to, police and sheriff’s offices, detention facilities, courthouses solely occupied by the Courts, governmental meeting locations, bars and airports. Private businesses may also post under this statute. It has been ruled, however, that KRS 26A.100 permits the prohibition of weapons in actual court facilities. Private businesses may prohibit an employee from carrying a concealed weapon, providing they have a CCDW permit, in a business-owned vehicle, but public employers may not do so unless the vehicle is used to transport persons under supervision (such as prisoners or mentally ill subjects).

[First paragraph of page 3; https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarryingv2.pdf ]

First bolded part; OH REALLY?! REALLY?! There's no possible law at all, that clearly says its illegal to carry, openly or concealed, into a court of justice or its offices? REALLY?!

Second Bolded part; So, there's no law at all that clearly states something about OPENLY carrying a firearm UNLOADED into a bar that makes more than half its profits from on-tap drinks, is legal? Well, apparently not!
------------------------------------------------

There is no specific criminal charge for carrying a concealed weapon in a location that does not permit it, so long as the person has a valid permit to carry concealed and is not otherwise prohibited. And, of course, there is no provision to prohibit an individual from carrying openly, either. However, the person may be subject to denial or removal from the premises. If they refuse to leave, they could be charged with Criminal Trespass. However, it would be questionable to place additional charges, such as Disorderly Conduct or Menacing against that individual unless facts exist to support those charges. (For example, simply because an individual is upset that another individual is legally carrying a weapon would not be enough to support a Disorderly Conduct charge, no more than someone wearing a shirt with an offensive logo would be.)

[Page 3; https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarryingv2.pdf ]

Am I the ONLY one who finds that paragraph massively suggestive that someone with a anti-gun mentality wrote it? or am I just being too critical and questioning of the powers that be?

But, hey, it'd be questionable to arrest someone for D/C or Menacing... but we're not saying that you can't, so go ahead and do it, because we all know the Commonwealths Attorney will fall in line and not question a single thing you say or do. Because we're all buddy buddy here in the DoJ.
------------------------------------------

KRS 237.115 permits a university or other postsecondary education facility to control the possession of deadly weapons on their property, but that has been changed someone by recent case law. (See below.) Local governmental bodies may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on their property, although the issue of carrying opening in such areas has never been adequately addressed. This statute does not apply to public housing and a few other listed areas. Under that statute, as well, there is no penalty for carrying concealed in any location where an unconcealed weapon may be carried.

[Page 3; https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarryingv2.pdf ]

Italicized portion; Grammar... Apparently it's not taught anymore, neither is the correct spelling of 'post-secondary'.
Bolded portion; Really? really? uh huh, okay.
________________________________________________

Maybe I'm just being mean, nasty, anti-cop, anti-government, anti-LEA, uneducated, non-understanding typical me! Or maybe the DoJ and the LEOs/LEAs/CAs that wrote these manuals really hold a epic load of disdain for us Civilians, and make things really vague so as to excuse any violation of our rights. Maybe our resident COPPER can chime in and re-affirm how liberty minded him and his badge-buddies are, even after showing off these obviously well thought-out guidelines.

 

[DrakeZ07]

Dammit Gutshot, I've asked you a couple times before not to use that name in the open forum.

If being 'off my meds' is what it's called to be a strict libertarian/consitutionalist, then bring on the labels. At-least I don't pander to, and over-look every governmental misstep. Oh, right, I'm sorry, how dare I question and be critical of people in the justice and law enforcement fields... After all, they know whats best for me and everyone else, and how dare ANYONE Friggen call them out on their B.S..

If y'all have a problem with my disdain for government, then feel free to gang together and lock me away in a dark government dungeon. Because that's the acceptable thing to do isn't it? Question the mental integrity of people who work against the status quo, and like to shake things up.

I bet if Daniel Boone, or one of the Founding fathers disguised themselves as someone else, and came to this forum, you'd probably be mentioning their lack of medication... Or not, because they wasn't extremist, they never question the status quo, and never shook things up, right?!

It's not a bad thing to be critical of anyone who works for, and with the government. If EVERYONE was half as critcal and suspicious as I am towards the government and its agents, then we as a nation, wouldn't be filled with complacent pansies who suckle on the gov't teet, and slander anyone who tries to break away.

For the record, the only medication I've not been taking, is the kind that keeps me from feeling the barb-wire that I urinate half a dozen times a day due in part to my inability to afford the medication, and my disdain for narcotics. So screw off.

 

[KYGlockster]

Folks do not allow the post of one individual to dissuade you from looking into these manuals. This is what the government has decided the Constitutions of the US and Kentucky allow. As it stands now, this is what they have ruled your CONSTITUTIONAL rights protect and don't protect. We may not agree with some of it, but it is law. We should all know the law so that we know we are always right when dealing with ROGUE government workers.

Some of these links will lead you to different Kentucky statutes and the many different UOR codes for different violations of said statutes. All in all it is a very intriguing read; it is a very informative read as well.

 

[KYGlockster]

Drake, when it states that peace officers would not be able to carry concealed off-duty, what they are implying is that they would not be able to carry concealed off-duty if under obligations of a Domestic Violence Order. The reason they stated "although normally, they would be permitted to do so" is because if not under obligations of a DVO they are allowed to carry concealed at all times and at all locations in the Commonwealth. Under Kentucky law, a peace officer who is served with a DVO can only carry concealed while actually on-duty. As long as the DVO is active, then their privilege to carry concealed off-duty is terminated. So, if the officer was not under obligations of a DVO, they are allowed to carry concealed off-duty.

As for your question regarding the paragraph that concerns charging with Disorderly Conduct and Menacing, I must say yes. To me it would appear someone who knows the law and KY Constitution wrote that paragraph. They specifically state that an officer should NOT charge for Disorderly Conduct or Menacing unless the person they charge actually committed said offense. They go in to great detail when stating that just because someone is upset that someone else is openly carrying a gun does NOT give the officer the right to arrest for either charge. They also use a comparison that is used here quite often that an officer should not arrest for someone carrying a gun just as they shouldn't arrest someone for wearing a t-shirt with an offensive logo. I believe they summed it up quite well and made it well-known that officers need to leave open carriers alone.

 

[BB62]

I found it all very informative and useful. I intend to print all of it and add it to my reference binder. Its nice to have so much info in one place.

Now that you two are BFF's, does that mean you're going to remove his name from the post where you used it?

 

[willy1094]

Folks do not allow the post of one individual to dissuade you from looking into these manuals. This is what the government has decided the Constitutions of the US and Kentucky allow. As it stands now, this is what they have ruled your CONSTITUTIONAL rights protect and don't protect. We may not agree with some of it, but it is law. We should all know the law so that we know we are always right when dealing with ROGUE government workers.

Some of these links will lead you to different Kentucky statutes and the many different UOR codes for different violations of said statutes. All in all it is a very intriguing read; it is a very informative read as well.

Thank you for the information!!!!

 

[OC for ME]

Drake, when it states that peace officers would not be able to carry concealed off-duty, what they are implying is that they would not be able to carry concealed off-duty if under obligations of a Domestic Violence Order. The reason they stated "although normally, they would be permitted to do so" is because if not under obligations of a DVO they are allowed to carry concealed at all times and at all locations in the Commonwealth. Under Kentucky law, a peace officer who is served with a DVO can only carry concealed while actually on-duty. As long as the DVO is active, then their privilege to carry concealed off-duty is terminated. So, if the officer was not under obligations of a DVO, they are allowed to carry concealed off-duty. <snip>

Uh, why not be explicit? I know, they weren't, so it is up to a government lawyer (or judge) to decide.

A cop who is served with a DVO/EPO gets to carry a gun? KRS 431.064(2)(d) seems to indicate that a condition can be placed on a wife or child beater that prohibits that person from using or possessing a firearm. I wonder how often a citizen or a cop has that condition placed upon them by the court.

In addition, an individual who the subject of an EPO or DVO will have their license to carry concealed suspended until such time as the order is terminated. (An officer in that situation may be permitted to carry concealed when on duty, but only when on duty; the statute (KRS 431.064?) suggests that they would not be permitted to carry concealed when off-duty, although normally, they would be permitted to do so.) It should be noted, however, that not every person who is the subject of a DVO will be prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law, but only those actually convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (usually Assault 4th Degree or Menacing).

As to Drake's point regarding the abuse of the English language; when a Ph. D. puts their name on the title page.....

 

[rs3604]

Thanks kyglockster, this is awesome info and answered a few questions I had.

 

[KYGlockster]

Uh, why not be explicit? I know, they weren't, so it is up to a government lawyer (or judge) to decide.

A cop who is served with a DVO/EPO gets to carry a gun? KRS 431.064(2)(d) seems to indicate that a condition can be placed on a wife or child beater that prohibits that person from using or possessing a firearm. I wonder how often a citizen or a cop has that condition placed upon them by the court.



As to Drake's point regarding the abuse of the English language; when a Ph. D. puts their name on the title page.....

I don't believe anyone -- peace officer or non-peace officer -- should lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because someone filed an EPO or DVO on them. These protective orders are much too easy to establish on someone, and no probable cause is needed. They imply in the paper quoted that only those that have actually been convicted of a crime of domestic violence lose their right to bear arms, but that is not true. I have seen several EPOs -- yes EPO, which means they have yet to have their day in court for it to become a DVO -- that had stipulations where the respondent had to relinquish their firearms to the court upon it being served. I did not agree with this at all. Being as it was a process of the court it had to be served, but no firearms were taken. Where is Due Process? Where are Constitutional rights? I tried my best to give these individuals all of the information I could that would help them fight this infringement, but I'm not sure how things turned out.

The point is that we have allowed illogical anger to determine what our state legislatures determine to be allowable in an EPO/DVO situation. People tend to focus only on the side of the female in these situations, which have made it nearly impossible for a male respondent to fight these orders. I know based on the facts that plenty of people that get served with these protective orders have done nothing to deserve it. In these matters, hearsay can completely remove someone's right to keep and bear arms at the stroke of a pen by a judge. A woman can go into a courthouse mad at her ex or whoever and say he pointed a gun at her and file for an EPO. The judge can then stipulate that the individual must surrender any and all firearms upon being served with said EPO. It doesn't matter if their is probable cause to believe what the woman said or anything else.

The bottom line is these laws need work in a major way. They completely destroy Due Process and give a judge too much power. These protective orders are abused all the time by people that really don't need them. We need to amend these statutes to give specific authority. We need to amend these statutes so that only those that have actually been convicted of a crime of domestic violence become under the restrictions of a protective order. And, we need to amend them so that not all domestic violence convictions result in the loss of your right to keep and bear arms. Some domestic violence convictions result from nothing more than a shove or perhaps even a thrown hamburger (research it). Should these people lose their right to keep and bear arms? I don't think so.

 

[Sundiver]

I started to say, fact of the matter but it isn't. My /opinion/ is that if someone is off his or her nut enough to want to go after someone with a gun in the first place, that protective order isn't worth a damn.

I don't believe anyone -- peace officer or non-peace officer -- should lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because someone filed an EPO or DVO on them. These protective orders are much too easy to establish on someone, and no probable cause is needed. They imply in the paper quoted that only those that have actually been convicted of a crime of domestic violence lose their right to bear arms, but that is not true. I have seen several EPOs -- yes EPO, which means they have yet to have their day in court for it to become a DVO -- that had stipulations where the respondent had to relinquish their firearms to the court upon it being served. I did not agree with this at all. Being as it was a process of the court it had to be served, but no firearms were taken. Where is Due Process? Where are Constitutional rights? I tried my best to give these individuals all of the information I could that would help them fight this infringement, but I'm not sure how things turned out.

The point is that we have allowed illogical anger to determine what our state legislatures determine to be allowable in an EPO/DVO situation. People tend to focus only on the side of the female in these situations, which have made it nearly impossible for a male respondent to fight these orders. I know based on the facts that plenty of people that get served with these protective orders have done nothing to deserve it. In these matters, hearsay can completely remove someone's right to keep and bear arms at the stroke of a pen by a judge. A woman can go into a courthouse mad at her ex or whoever and say he pointed a gun at her and file for an EPO. The judge can then stipulate that the individual must surrender any and all firearms upon being served with said EPO. It doesn't matter if their is probable cause to believe what the woman said or anything else.

The bottom line is these laws need work in a major way. They completely destroy Due Process and give a judge too much power. These protective orders are abused all the time by people that really don't need them. We need to amend these statutes to give specific authority. We need to amend these statutes so that only those that have actually been convicted of a crime of domestic violence become under the restrictions of a protective order. And, we need to amend them so that not all domestic violence convictions result in the loss of your right to keep and bear arms. Some domestic violence convictions result from nothing more than a shove or perhaps even a thrown hamburger (research it). Should these people lose their right to keep and bear arms? I don't think so.

 

[self preservation]

On the case laws documents, what does the term "holding" refer to? It seems to be either a yes or no answer.

 

[OC for ME]

If a cop is served with a EPO is he permitted to possess a firearm? The statutes make no mention of this issue.

 

[self preservation]

I found it all very informative and useful. I intend to print all of it and add it to my reference binder. Its nice to have so much info in one place.

I thought I would add this to my reference binder as well. Instead, I had to make a whole new binder. Lots and lots of great info, lot's and lot's of pages.