Supreme Court to hear cell phone data, other cases

Public can watch via livestream

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WTVQ/Press Release) – The Supreme Court of Kentucky will hear oral arguments Oct. 20-21, including the state’s challenge to a Kentucky Court of Appeals ruling that police must have a warrant to use a person’s real-time cell phone data to track their location. Proceedings are open to the public and will take place at 10 and 11 a.m. ET each day in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the second floor of the state Capitol in Frankfort.

livestream will be available for watching arguments online. To watch proceedings later, click here.

Seven justices sit on the Supreme Court and all seven justices rule on appeals that come before the court. The justices are elected from seven appellate districts and serve eight-year terms. A chief justice, chosen for a four-year term by fellow justices, is the administrative head of the state’s court system and is responsible for its operation.

The Supreme Court may order a ruling or opinion to be published, which means that the ruling becomes the case law governing all similar cases in the future in Kentucky.

Oral Arguments

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2021
10 a.m. ET
2020-SC-0312-DG
SEILLER WATERMAN, LLC, ET AL. V. BARDSTOWN CAPITAL CORPORATION, ET AL. 

Torts. Wrongful Use of Civil Proceeding. Issues presented include application of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (and the “sham exception” to that doctrine) to circumstances concerning counsel and their clients’ challenge to a zoning change premised upon lack of “fresh notice” of a rescheduled Planning Commission evidentiary hearing.

View briefs

Discretionary Review Granted: 12/09/2020
Jefferson Circuit Court, Judge Judith E. McDonald-Burkman

Counsel for Appellants: James P. Grohmann and Steven T. Porter
Counsel for Appellees: Hans G. Poppe and Kirk A. Laughlin

11 a.m. ET
2020-SC-0116-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. DOVONTIA REED

Criminal Law. Search and Seizure. Warrant. Real-Time Cell Phone Location Data. Issues presented include whether real-time cell phone location data may be obtained without a warrant absent exigent circumstances, and what constitutes exigent circumstances with regard to such data.

View briefs

Discretionary Review Granted: 9/16/2020
Woodford Circuit Court, Judge Jeremy Mattox

Counsel for Appellant: Brett R. Nolan, Matthew F. Kuhn, Jeffrey A. Cross, and S. Chad Meredith
Counsel for Appellee: Adam Meyer and Kathleen Kallaher Schmidt
Counsel for Amicus Curiae: Corey M. Shapiro and Heather Gatnarek

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021
10 a.m. ET
2020-SC-0080-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. STEVEN D. ROARK

Criminal Law. Evidence. Hearsay. Former Testimony Exception. Issues presented include whether a statement Roark’s co-defendant made during the co-defendant’s plea hearing, in which the co-defendant claimed sole responsibility for the crime, was admissible at Roark’s trial under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.

View briefs

Knox Circuit Court, Special Judge David A. Tapp

Counsel for Appellant: Robert Baldridge
Counsel for Appellee: Shannon Dupree

11 a.m. ET
2020-SC-0339-DG
BORDERS SELF-STORAGE & RENTALS, LLC V. KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

Eminent Domain. Fair Market Value. PVA Value. Issues presented include whether a property owner should be permitted to introduce the PVA assessment of a property into evidence for purposes of establishing fair market value during eminent domain proceedings.

View briefs

Discretionary Review Granted: 3/17/21
Lawrence Circuit Court, Judge John David Preston

Counsel for Appellant: Nelson T. Sparks
Counsel for Appellee: Stacy D. Conley

Categories: Featured, Local News, News