Reply With Quote
Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? Let's look at what the bill actually says:Originally Posted by zx150
*The word "may" is struck through in the actual text, indicating it was replaced with "shall."
KRS 431.015 is amended to read as follows:
(1) (a) KRS 431.005 to the contrary notwithstanding, and except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, a peace officer shall[may]* issue a citation instead of making an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his or her presence, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person being cited will appear to answer the charge. The citation shall provide that the defendant shall appear within a designated time.
(b) A peace officer may make an arrest instead of issuing a citation for a misdemeanor committed in his or her presence if the misdemeanor is:
1. A violation of KRS Chapter 508, 510, or 527, or KRS 189A.010;
2. An offense in which the defendant poses a risk of danger to himself, herself, or another person; or
3. An offense in which the defendant refuses to follow the peace officer's reasonable instructions.
(c) A peace officer shall make an arrest for violations of protective orders issued pursuant to KRS 403.715 to 403.785.
(2) A peace officer may issue a citation instead of making an arrest for a violation committed in his presence but may not make a physical arrest unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant, if a citation is issued, will not appear at the designated time or unless the offense charged is a violation of KRS 189.223, 189.290, 189.393, 189.520, 189.580, 235.240, 281.600, 511.080, or 525.070 committed in his presence or a violation of KRS 189A.010, not committed in his presence, for which an arrest without a warrant is permitted under KRS 431.005(1)(e).
The first thing the bill does is assign to peace officers a responsibility previously reserved for judges, namely, deciding whether or not a given defendant can be expected to show up for court. Now, I can understand why police officers might not like that, because that's not really part of their jobs, but it seems to me it also gives them a lot of leeway in deciding whether or not to arrest a given suspect.
Then it lists a bunch of exceptions, where arrests can be made, like assault, sexual offenses, weapons offenses, DUI, criminal trespass, some traffic violations, etc. I went through and Google'ed those statutes that it lists as exceptions and it seems to me they've pretty well got all the bases covered, and for the most part, the people that are going to be getting citations aren't going to be dangerous people that need to be gotten off the street. They're going to be people who will show up in court, and if they're first offenders, will most likely get probation, and maybe some kind of treatment. If they're repeat offenders, they're charges are going to be escalated to felonies anyway, so they'll arrest them. So you're basically just not arresting people that are going to get out on bail, and aren't going to be sentenced to jail time anyway, with the net effect being to save money, with no impact one way or the other on crime.
At least, that's my take on it. The law just took effect a couple weeks ago. We'll have to wait and see if crime really does "skyrocket," as some in law enforcement are predicting.
