Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Free in Kentucky: Racketeering? Fuggedaboutit!

Free in Kentucky: Racketeering? Fuggedaboutit! : What is racketeering? It is a common joke that the definition is so complicated that nobody is capable of understanding it. For example,...

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Free in Kentucky: A One Gun Salute to a Catch 22: Can You Kill Someb...

Free in Kentucky: A One Gun Salute to a Catch 22: Can You Kill Someb...: Today’s blog topic covers the validity/invalidity of a legal “urban legend.” I’ve been asked on a couple of occasions whether you can kill...

A One Gun Salute to a Catch 22: Can You Kill Somebody in Order to Prevent Suicide in Kentucky?

Today’s blog topic covers the validity/invalidity of a legal “urban legend.”  I’ve been asked on a couple of occasions whether you can kill someone to prevent their suicide.  Usually this is asked in a skeptical tone, like “I heard from somebody that you can kill someone to prevent them from killing themselves.  That’s not true, is it?

The idea of justified “killing to prevent the death of someone trying to kill themselves” sounds pretty ridiculous at first blush.  Usually when you have a law that deals with suicide, the law is driven heavily by “public policy” concerns.  Lawmakers and regulators often try to keep in mind what sort of ramifications the law will have on the general public – what the law will encourage the public to do or not to do.  Generally, and obviously, laws concerning suicide are created to prevent suicide.

There is a concern as to whether the public policy of suicide prevention would be satisfied if you allowed deadly force to be justified in suicide prevention.  Take the following couple of examples:

1) Rob commutes to Louisville every day from Indiana.  The bridge he typically travels has a crack; his commute is extended by an hour each way.  On top of this horrific nastiness, Rob finds out that R.E.M. just broke up.  A devoted R.E.M. fan, Rob is devastated and wants it all to be over.  He doesn’t care how it happens, and doesn’t want to leave a note.  Rob just wants to punch out.  Therefore, he gets a gun and prepares to off himself in his living room.  As Rob prepares to commit suicide, Rob’s neighbor walks in to borrow some sugar.  Neighbor is carrying a sidearm for no reason other than the fact that I need him to have a weapon in this hypothetical.  Would Rob be deterred from committing suicide if he knew Neighbor could kill him to prevent it?

2) Jan is crazy.  She loves her cats more than anything in the world.  When she isn’t updating her cats’ Facebook pages, or watching home videos of her cats, she likes to spend time with her cats.  Jan believes that her cats are going to die if she doesn’t give them some of her soul.  The only way Jan can give her soul to her cats is if she commits suicide in her living room, surrounded by the cats.  Jan laces her tub of Cherry Garcia with hemlock, and digs out a big spoonful as she sits in the living room surrounded by the cats.  Just then, neighbor walks in to borrow some sugar.  Neighbor is again, conveniently carrying a sidearm.  Would Jan be deterred from committing suicide if she knew Neighbor could kill her to prevent it?

In the first hypothetical, the answer is no.  Rob would not be deterred from his suicide attempt because he just “wants it all to end.”  Suicide is just a means to an end for Rob.  If his end is met by other means, Rob still accomplishes his goal.

However, Jan is a different story.  Her suicide is a ritual, to be performed for a specific purpose.  If the ritual itself were to be disrupted, she would not accomplish her goal.  Knowledge that Neighbor could and would kill her to prevent the ritual would provide an incentive for Jan to stop the suicide attempt, and maybe try it again later.  In the meantime, a mental inquest warrant may be able to get Jan some much needed therapy.  By this rationale, Jan’s death may be preventable by implementing a law that justifies deadly force to prevent suicide.

But for better or worse, that’s not what our law does.  KRS 503.100 controls prevention of a suicide or crime, and it states (in pertinent part):

 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from:
(a) Committing suicide or inflicting serious physical injury upon himself; or
(b) Committing a crime involving or threatening serious physical injury to person, substantial damage to or loss of property, or any other violent conduct.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1)(b) only when the defendant believes that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime is likely to endanger human life.

As you can see, subsection (2) reserves the use of deadly force for situations arising under subsection (1)(b), which excludes “suicide or inflicting serious physical injury upon himself.”  So the answer is “No.  In Kentucky, deadly force is not justified to prevent suicide.”

I know that was a lot of build up for a relatively short and straightforward answer, but I'm feeling froggy* today, so I jumped.

If you have killed someone in order to prevent their suicide, you need a good Louisville homicide lawyer.  Call one of the experienced homicide lawyers at Gruner & Simms, PLLC.  We practice in Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Elizabethtown, and the surrounding areas.  Your initial consultation is free, so call 502.618.4949 or visit www.grunersimms.com today.  Results.  As fast as the law will allow.

*Also known as "squirrly" in some circles.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Free in Kentucky: Yay! Oh! The Legal Details on Trafficking in Coc...

Free in Kentucky: Yay! Oh! The Legal Details on Trafficking in Coc...: Apparently one can stuff almost a kilo of booger sugar into one’s intestines. If one is so inclined. http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...

Yay! Oh! The Legal Details on Trafficking in Cocaine.

Apparently one can stuff almost a kilo of booger sugar into one’s intestines.  If one is so inclined. 


Per MSNBC, the link above shows bags filled with cocaine inside the gastrointestinal tract of a 20-year-old Irish national arrested by police at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on September 12. According to MSNBC, the man, identified only as P.B.B., was stopped whilst trying to board a flight outbound for Brussels with 72 bags containing almost a kilogram of the drug inside his intestines.

If you haven’t clicked on the link above, you should do so, if only to see the advances in modern medical imaging.  It’s fascinating.

There are a lot of reasons the above gentleman may not be guilty.  If the baggies contain some substance besides the alleged happy dust, he obviously isn’t guilty of the offense for which he is charged.  And even if the baggies do contain cocaine, if he was forced to smuggle the drugs against his will (which certainly has happened in some past cases), then he may have a solid “choice of evils” defense.  In which case he would also be Not Guilty.  Regardless, I do not know P.B.B., and we can’t know whether the allegations against him are true or false.

On a related note – we’ve talked at length about the big changes that HB 463 made to Kentucky marijuana laws.   People have asked me what changes HB 463 has brought to laws concerning other drugs.  Cocaine trafficking has certainly been affected by the bill, and the changes have been codified into law.  The question for today is:  In Kentucky, how much cocaine can a person sell before the transaction constitutes “cocaine trafficking?”

Any Louisville drug charge lawyer can tell you that the law used to say that any transfer of cocaine whatsoever constituted trafficking in a controlled substance, first degree.  Lawyers frequently refer to “trafficking in a controlled substance” as “TICS” which is pronounced “ticks.”  For example:  “My client was charged with 'TICS first,' but I walked him because he was only the driver of the vehicle.  The passenger was the one selling yay out the window.”

Anyway, the law has changed.  Since June 8, 2011, there is a minimum amount of cocaine that must be sold to constitute TICS first.  KRS 218A.1412 controls, and it provides:

(1) A person is guilty of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree when he or she knowingly and unlawfully traffics in:
(a) Four (4) grams or more of cocaine; …
(3) (a) … any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class C felony for the first offense and a Class B felony for a second or subsequent offense.

Obviously this is pretty serious stuff.  For the first offense, the defendant is looking at 5-10 years in prison on a Class C felony, and for the second or subsequent offense, the defendant is looking at 10-20 on a Class B.  That’s a lot of time.  So how much is a gram of cocaine?  For those who don’t have jobs that require you to be familiar with the measurements of Colombian bam bam, a gram is about one Splenda packet.  Part of the answer to our question of the day is: You have to traffic four grams or more of cocaine in order to be guilty of TICS first.

This does not mean that selling less than four grams of cocaine is ok.  Trafficking in ANY amount of cocaine is still very much a felony in Kentucky.  However, HB 463 changed the laws so that trafficking in less than 4 grams now constitutes a Class D felony, rather than a Class C.  Also, for first offense traffickers, KRS 218A.1413 places a jail cap on the Class D felony of 3 years.  If a person traffics in less than four grams of cocaine, and the offense is a second or subsequent offense, then they face a Class D felony without the jail cap.  That means they face the normal 1-5 years that a Class D felony typically carries.

Please be advised that you can avoid the above offenses by NOT trafficking in cocaine.

Cocaine charges are very serious in Kentucky.  If you have been charged with trafficking in cocaine in Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Elizabethtown or the surrounding areas, you should get a lawyer that will fight for your Constitutional rights.  Call Louisville drug charge lawyer Greg Simms. for a free consultation about your case.  Call 502.618.4949 today.  Results.  As fast as the law will allow.


Questions answered in this blog post: What constitutes trafficking in cocaine in Kentucky; how much cocaine equals trafficking in cocaine in Kentucky; how do I find a good Louisville drug charge lawyer; how much is a gram of cocaine; how big is a gram of cocaine;  what were the changes HB 463 made to cocaine trafficking; how do I find a good Louisville cocaine trafficking lawyer; how many slang terms for cocaine can I shove into a blog post; how many grams constitutes trafficking in a controlled substance for cocaine?

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Free in Kentucky: "Stalker" Woman Calls Man Sixty Five Thousand (65,...

Free in Kentucky: "Stalker" Woman Calls Man Sixty Five Thousand (65,...: There’s harassment. And then there’s harassment. I just hope for her sake that she signed up for the "unlimited minutes" plan. ...

"Stalker" Woman Calls Man Sixty Five Thousand (65,000) Times in One (1) Year

There’s harassment.  And then there’s harassment.  I just hope for her sake that she signed up for the "unlimited minutes" plan.

            And I’m trying not to judge here.  Every once in a while, an individual might have a couple of toddies, start reminiscing about old times and call up their ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend.  And sometimes they don’t answer the phone so you have to call back.  178 times.  Per day.  Every day for a year.  That, my friends, averages out to about 7.5 times per hour every hour for a year.  If the woman doesn’t sleep.  Again, I’m not judging.
            Per CBS news, Dutch prosecutors have charged a 42-year-old woman with stalking after she allegedly called her ex-boyfriend 65,000 times in the last year.  The 62-year-old (alleged) victim from The Hague filed a police complaint in August due to persistent phone calls. Police arrested the suspected stalker Monday, seizing several cell phones and computers from her home in Rotterdam.  Hague prosecution spokeswoman Nicolette Stoel said Thursday the woman argued to judges at a preliminary hearing she had a relationship with the man and the number of calls she placed to him wasn't excessive.  The man denied they had a relationship.
            Isn’t the last part the best part?  The guy (who is 20 years the alleged perpetrator’s senior) says they didn’t even have a relationship!
            I have no idea whether the allegations in the aforementioned story are true or false, so let’s move on to something different, but related.  So today, we will make up a hypothetical situation, where some crazy lady – we will call her “Ellen” – calls “Bob,” a man she likes, 65,000 times in one year.  Ellen is charged with Stalking, but she vehemently denies being a stalker.  She just really likes hearing the sound of Bob’s voice.
            Where is the line drawn between Harassing Communications and Stalking in Kentucky?  Let’s go to the KRS.
            First, we’ll look at “Harassment” which is a term that gets thrown around “willy-nilly” as my grandmother would say.  It is an extremely broad definition, which means parts, if not all, of the statute may actually be unconstitutional.  It reads:

525.070   Harassment.
(1) A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him to physical contact;
(b) Attempts or threatens to strike, shove, kick, or otherwise subject the person to physical contact;
(c) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;
(d) Follows a person in or about a public place or places;
(e) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose; or
(f) Being enrolled as a student in a local school district, and while on school premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event:
1. Damages or commits a theft of the property of another student;
2. Substantially disrupts the operation of the school; or
3. Creates a hostile environment by means of any gestures, written communications, oral statements, or physical acts that a reasonable person under the circumstances should know would cause another student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment.
(2) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, harassment is a violation.
(b) Harassment, as defined in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, is a Class B misdemeanor.

            The problems with this statute are abundant.  One particularly glaring example is subsection (1)(c).  Making an “offensively coarse” gesture to someone or using “abusive” language to someone in public can be illegal.  Seriously?  Show me someone who HASN’T violated this law, and I will personally give them an offensively coarse gesture in public.  The law is over-broad to the point of absurdity.  And what is the phrase “no legitimate purpose” supposed to mean?  What about venting frustration, entertaining yourself, or conveying anger?  Are these purposes “legitimate?”  The law is vague, and that is a serious constitutional problem.  As it pertains to Ellen, it seems like the statute is not on-point because it doesn’t address phone calls.
            Let’s move on to something more on point to today’s conversation:  telephone contact.  When harassment takes the form of telephone calls, KRS 525.080 is controlling.

525.080   Harassing communications.
(1) A person is guilty of harassing communications when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written communication in a manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication;
(b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
(c) Communicates, while enrolled as a student in a local school district, with or about another school student, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, the
Internet, telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written communication in a manner which a reasonable person under the circumstances should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment and which serves no purpose of legitimate communication.
(2) Harassing communications is a Class B misdemeanor.

            This statute is a bit less vague.  It still contains the “no legitimate purpose” language, but at least with this statute, you get more of an indication as to what sort of conduct is prohibited.  You cannot, for example, just call someone and hang up on them without intending to talk to them at all.
            The question for today is when, if ever, does this conduct cross the line to “Stalking?”  This is a strange question, because you have to do more than just the conduct described in the definition of “stalking” to be guilty of a stalking offense in Kentucky.  I know that sounds like a big stinking load of lawyer talk, but please allow me to explain.  Pursuant to KRS 508.130, 

(1) (a) To "stalk" means to engage in an intentional course of conduct:
1. Directed at a specific person or persons;
2. Which seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates, or harasses the person or persons; and
3. Which serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) The course of conduct shall be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial mental distress.

            However, even if you have engaged in the conduct enumerated above, you haven’t yet done anything which would constitute a “stalking” offense because you have not yet threatened anyone.  Pay close attention to the following stalking statutes and note the “threat” element of both Stalking in the first degree and Stalking in the second degree.

508.140   Stalking in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of stalking in the first degree,
(a) When he intentionally:
1. Stalks another person; and
2. Makes an explicit or implicit threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of:
a. Sexual contact as defined in KRS 510.010;
b. Serious physical injury; or
c. Death; and
(b) 1. A protective order has been issued by the court to protect the same victim or victims and the defendant has been served with the summons or order or has been given actual notice; or
2. A criminal complaint is currently pending with a court, law enforcement agency, or prosecutor by the same victim or victims and the defendant has been served with a summons or warrant or has been given actual notice; or
3. The defendant has been convicted of or pled guilty within the previous five (5) years to a felony or to a Class A misdemeanor against the same victim or victims; or
4. The act or acts were committed while the defendant had a deadly weapon on or about his person.
(2) Stalking in the first degree is a Class D felony.



508.150   Stalking in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of stalking in the second degree when he intentionally:
(a) Stalks another person; and
(b) Makes an explicit or implicit threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of:
1. Sexual contact as defined in KRS 510.010;
2. Physical injury; or
3. Death.
(2) Stalking in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.


            Notice that a threat is required for a person to be guilty of either stalking offense.  Now let’s go back to our hypothetical.  Ellen, could you come back in the room please?  Get off the phone Ellen; we’re trying to talk to you.
            It seems like Ellen is Not Guilty of Stalking as the statute reads in Kentucky because there was nothing in the hypothetical which indicates that Ellen made any sort of threat to Bob.  That is the good news.  The bad news for Ellen is that she may be guilty of Harassing Communications – especially if she really never had a relationship with Bob.  It wouldn’t be difficult for a Kentucky prosecutor to prove that at least a few of the 65,000 phone calls were not made with a legitimate purpose of communication.  Ellen needs a good Louisville criminal defense lawyer who can make a motion to declare the statute under which she is charged to be Unconstitutional.
            If you have been charged with Harassing Communications or Stalking in Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Elizabethtown, or the surrounding areas, call Gruner & Simms, PLLC.  Our experienced Louisville criminal defense lawyers will give you a free initial consultation about your case.  Call 502.618.4949 or visit www.grunersimms.com today.


     Questions answered in this blog post:  In Kentucky, what is harassing communications; what can I do if someone won't stop calling me; how can I find a Louisville harassment lawyer; how many phone calls equal stalking in Kentucky; how can I find a Louisville stalking charge lawyer; what is the difference between stalking in the first degree and stalking in the second degree; how can I find a good Louisville criminal defense lawyer; what is the definition of stalking in Kentucky?

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Free in Kentucky: Burger King Sword Fight: Is it Illegal to Duel in ...

Free in Kentucky: Burger King Sword Fight: Is it Illegal to Duel in ...: Per the Village Voice Empire : Police say that Lucas French, a manager at Burger King in rural Minnesota, got into a drunken sword ...

Burger King Sword Fight: Is it Illegal to Duel in Kentucky?

        Per the Village Voice Empire: Police say that Lucas French, a manager at Burger King in rural Minnesota, got into a drunken sword fight with a co-worker at the co-worker’s home.  In addition, Police say that the medieval duel occurred in front of French’s 10 year old child.  A website called “mugshotjunkie.com” also say that French hit his 10 year old with the sword, cutting the child, after the kid told his father that he was scared to ride his bike home in the dark. 
            I don’t know much about the Village Voice Empire or mugshotjunkie, but I worked at McDonald’s part time for a couple of years in high school.  Thus, I am an expert in conflict resolution in the fast food workplace.  Dueling with medieval weaponry is the third step in fast food workplace conflict resolution, so this story makes a lot of sense to me.  It gets stressful during the dinner rush, and you need to have a mechanism in place to solve problems amongst co-workers.  And some people just like to party.  Obviously, I have no idea whether the allegations against Mr. French are true or false.  So today, we’re just going to talk about the answer to one question: In Kentucky, is it legal to have a duel?
            This week’s blog is going to be kind of short.  The answer is “No.”  KRS 437.030 governs challenges to duel, and it reads:  Any person who, in this state, challenges another to fight with any deadly weapon, in or out of this state, and any person who accepts the challenge, shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) nor more than twelve (12) months. Any person who knowingly carries or delivers such a challenge in this state, or consents in this state to be a second to either party shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100) and imprisoned for thirty (30) days.
            So no, you can’t challenge anyone to, or accept a challenge to duel in Kentucky.  In fact, it is even illegal to deliver a challenge for someone else.  So there you have it.  Short and sweet.


Questions answered in this blog post: Is it legal to duel in Kentucky; how do I find a good Louisville homicide lawyer; can I challenge someone to a duel in Kentucky; what is the penalty for dueling in Kentucky; is it legal to duel?