Five days ago, I told you about the tragic death of Doug Harless, shot by officers from the London (Kentucky) Police Department during a wrong house raid over the county “Judge-Executive’s” stolen weedeater. Since then there have been several updates, including a “Justice for Doug” march/protest, as well as a fiery town council meeting. But, in a “truth is stranger than fiction” style twist, an audio recording has surfaced of a phone call between the county Judge Executive, David Westerfield and London Police Officer Jared Hale, which tells us the real story….
An innocent Kentucky man was shot dead by the London, Kentucky police after they raided the wrong house, surprising him at night during an impromptu search warrant execution, looking for a “Judge’s” missing weedeater. So far, authorities have released almost no information. But here’s what we do know so far, and it doesn’t look good at all…
George Henderson spent 29 years serving in the military with 6 overseas deployments. He retired in 2018 after his head injuries and PTSD began to worsen. He was then diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, which led to him going missing on December 6. The State of Tennessee issued a Silver Alert. Mr. Henderson was located a day later, 10 miles away, in nearby Guthrie, Kentucky. Unfortunately, when that happened, a Guthrie police officer punched him unconscious. They have circled their law enforcement wagons, claim no wrongdoing, and apparently continue to prosecute this American hero.
Dallas Campbell walked into the police department in Hazard, Kentucky a free man, doing his best to keep a notoriously untrustworthy police agency (at least that’s what I learned watching the “Dukes of Hazard”) honest. Unfortunately, he left in handcuffs, the victim of a false arrest. But he had a small YouTube channel, and 12 days after he posted the video of his arrest, the Hazard Police Chief was fired.
In the small town of Leitchfield, Kentucky, something amazing happened. A man’s house caught on fire (“far”) and emergency responders showed up. Instead of the fire department, the police department was first on the scene. Instead of helping in some constructive way, they ordered the homeowners, who were attempting to put out the fire, out of the house. When they refused, the officers beat and tased them. Then, when the government put the case before a grand jury, in an attempt to indict the homeowner, the grand jury said no, and instead indicted the police officer. The officer’s lawyer said he’d never heard of that happening before…
One particular police officer in Kentucky, Larry “Gus” Curtis, has repeatedly resigned while under investigation, subsequently appearing somewhere else. This last time, he was fired, and as far as I know, his current whereabouts are unknown. Prior to resigning from the Frankfort Police Department, he was sued twice for barging into women’s homes without a warrant. In one such case, a Kentucky judge lambasted Curtis for bodycam footage showing him barging into a woman’s home as part of a CPS investigation, even after the woman asked for a warrant.
In a quiet neighborhood, chaos erupted when police were called to the home of a 71 year old man. His wife, battling dementia, mistakenly called 911, alleging he shot her. But as officers arrived, they immediately escalated the situation, trying to kick in the door first, and ask questions later. When the homeowner answered the door, they forcibly pulled him out – in his bathrobe – and threw him down his own front steps, injuring him. Then they lied about it. What followed was a legal battle that just ended in a six figure settlement.
How did a routine morning having coffee in your robe spiral into a nightmare? It involves serious problems at this particular police department on a large scale, that recently were exposed in a federal investigation.
I literally received hundreds of requests for my take on this outrageous bodycam footage that was originally uploaded by Lackluster, showing a lady being arrested in Kentucky, after she attempted to criticize a police officer for his poor driving skills. Well, you were right that I would be interested in this incident. Here’s my take on it.
Here are the relevant Kentucky statutes (I mistakenly used disorderly conduct in the first degree in the video, but the operative portions are identical):
On March 18 at 1:15 a.m., the Calloway County Sheriff’s Department, in Kentucky, arrived at a private residence with an arrest warrant for a guy who did not reside at the residence, but whose vehicle was parked in the yard, undergoing maintenance by the homeowner. When the footage turns on, you’ll see police walking towards the husband slash homeowner. Then you’ll see the man’s wife come outside and ask for a warrant and also for the officers to leave the property.
This raises constitutional issues about whether law enforcement can enter and remain in someone’s front yard under these circumstances, where the home’s residents are present and asking them to leave. And where there is no arrest warrant for the home’s residents – nor a search warrant for that home? This also raises issues about whether police can detain those residents, including their guests, without their consent and in the absence of a search warrant? This is a common issue that most people misunderstand – especially police. Let’s look at this footage, which you haven’t seen anywhere else, and clear up the legal rights at issue.
NOTE: This footage was submitted anonymously and I really have no idea what the outcome was in the criminal case, or otherwise. One would hope that no convictions resulted from this, for reasons I explain in the video, as well as below….
Some of the applicable law discussed in the video:
According to the 1980 Supreme Court opinion in Payton v. New York, in order to legally arrest someone in a home, rather than in a public place, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers must have a warrant.
According to the 1984 Supreme Court opinion in Oliver v. United States, the heightened Fourth Amendment protections of the home extend beyond just the interior of the home itself into what’s called the “curtilage” of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court, the curtilage is considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.
In the 2013 Supreme Court opinion of Florida v. Jardines, the Court held that a search undoubtedly occurs when the government, without a warrant, obtains information by physically intruding within the curtilage of a house, which in that actual case involved a home’s front porch. The Court cautioned that a search occurs unless a homeowner has explicitly or implicitly sanctioned the government’s physical intrusion into the constitutionally protected area, i.e., the yard and/or porch of the home.
Under the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” This means there is an “implicit license . . . to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” An officer may also bypass the front door (or another entry point usually used by visitors) when circumstances reasonably indicate that the officer might find the homeowner elsewhere on the property. “Critically, however, the right to knock and talk does not entail a right to conduct a general investigation of the home’s curtilage.”
The obvious difference between a police officer and a young girl selling girl scout cookies, is that many, if not most, homeowners have no idea whether they have any right to refuse to answer the door, or to ask the person to leave. Police like it this way. They don’t inform people of these rights, and the courts have ruled that they have no legal obligation to do so. You have to inform yourself and spread the word.
Police officers, and anyone else really, have an implied license to come onto your property and knock on your door. This implied license can be revoked. Homeowners can prevent ordinary citizens and police officers alike from conducting a knock and talk by revoking their implied license to be there. However, few citizens know that an implied license exists. Generally, the courts require that a homeowner do so by clear demonstrations or express orders. For instance, asking someone to leave or refusing to answer questions.
Can the police pepper spray a handcuffed man just because he’s running his mouth? Here’s some brand new exclusive footage from a federal civil rights lawsuit just filed by my friend, Kentucky civil rights attorney Chris Wiest. We had a great discussion about this footage, the lawsuit he just filed on behalf of this guy, as well as some general advice he has when potential clients are interacting with police officers.
