NewsKentucky Politics

Actions

Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Lexington's no-knock warrant ban

Kentucky Legislature
Posted
and last updated

LEXINGTON, Ky. (LEX 18) — The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Lexington cannot ban police from seeking no-knock warrants, striking down a local ordinance that justices say conflicts with state law.

The court found that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's ordinance banning police from seeking no-knock warrants is "null, void, and of no effect" because it conflicts with state legislation passed in 2021, according to a document from the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

The ruling centers on Senate Bill 4, which established strict requirements for no-knock warrants rather than banning them outright. The document read that the state law requires "clear and convincing evidence" that suspects are violent offenders, mandates superior officer approval, requires prosecutor consultation, and limits execution to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. unless there are "exigent circumstances."

"Local ordinances cannot indirectly limit judges' constitutional authority to issue warrants when state law permits them," the court said.

The decision affects how Lexington police can operate and raises questions about the balance between local and state authority in law enforcement matters. The ruling also impacts police collective bargaining rights, as the case raised questions about whether police unions must be consulted before cities change law enforcement policies,

Under the state law, officers who lie in no-knock warrant applications face Class D felony charges, and evidence from improperly obtained warrants is inadmissible in court.

The court emphasized that the ruling protects judicial authority from local government interference, noting that separation of powers prevents local ordinances from limiting constitutional authority when state law permits certain actions.

Louisville Metro had passed a similar no-knock warrant ban before the state legislature acted, and the status of that ordinance may now be in question following this ruling.