WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TONIGHT, NO KNOCK WARRANTS AT THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE FATAL POLICE SHOOTING OF BREONNA TAYLOR IN HER LOUISVILLE APARTMENT, LEGISLATORS ARE RESPONDING TO THE STATEWIDE OUTCRY TO REGULAT WARRANTS, LIKE WHAT POLICE USED TO FORCIBLY ENTER TAYLOR'S HOME OFFICERS ENTERED THE HOME UNANNOUNCED IN CONDUCTING A DRU TAYLOR'S BOYFRIEND SHOT AT OFFICERS, BELIEVING THEY WERE INTRUDERS, AND WHEN POLICE RETURNED FIRE, THE 26-YEAR-OLD EMT WAS KILLED.

NO DRUGS WERE FOUND IN THE APARTMENT.

WEEKS OF PROTESTS FOLLOWED, AND SO DID CALLS FOR A BAN ON NO-KNOCK WAR THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY I NOW CONSIDERING THE FUTURE OF THESE WARRANTS, WITH SOME LAWMAKERS WANTING LIMITATIONS AND OTHERS WANTING OUTRIGHT BAN.

TO DISCUSS THIS TONIGHT WE'RE JOINED IN TOWER FRANKFORT STUDIO BY SENATOR ROSH STIVERS, REPUBLICAN FROM MANCHESTER AND PRESIDENT OF THE KENTUCKY SENAT REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT, DEMOCRAT FROM LOUISVILLE, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE BILLS IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION ADDRESSING NO-KNOCK WARRANTS.

IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO, JECOREY ARTHUR, ACTIVIST AND COUNCILMAN FROM LOUISVILLE'S METRO DISTRICT 4, AND HERE IN ELECTRONICS STUDIO, RYAN STRAW, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR O THE KENTUCKY STATE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE.

WE WANT YOU TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

WE KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT, SO SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TONIGHT ON TWITTER @KY SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/ MAKE SURE TO CHECK THE BOX THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT.

OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 1-800-494 PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU'RE CALLING FROM ON ALL YOUR MESSAGES.

WELCOME TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS NEAR AND FAR.

WE APPRECIATE PARTICULARLY OUR LEGISLATORS BEING HERE WITH US.

THEY HAVE HAD A DAY FULL OF ACTIVITY, PRESIDENT STIVERS AND REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT.

WE KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG SESSION AND A LONG DAY SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE AND PRESENCE WITH US TONIGHT.

AND SENATOR STIVERS, I WANT TO BEGIN WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE SAID ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT IF YOUR MEASURE, SENATE BILL 4, AND I'LL GIVE YOU TIME TO OUTLINE WHAT IS IN SENATE BILL 4, AND ALSO ALLOW REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT TO TALK ABOUT HER HOUSE BILL 21, YOU HAVE SAID THAT IF SENATE BILL 4 WERE IN PLACE LAST YEAR, THAT BREONNA TAYLOR MAY BE ALIVE.

TELL US ABOUT SENATE BILL 4, AND WILL IT PREVENT ANOTHER INCIDENT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO BREONNA TAYLOR?

>> WELL, THANK YOU, RENEE, AND I'M GLAD TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

LOOK, CAN I SAY THAT IT WOULD PREVENT?

NO, I CAN'T SAY IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY 100% PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT WOULD SET A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK FOR OBTAINING A WARRANT OF THE NATURE THAT THEY WERE EXECUTING THAT NIGHT.

IT WOULD NOT ALLOW, AS THE BILL LEFT THE SENATE, TO OBTAIN A WARRANT, A SEARCH WARRANT UNDER A NO KNOCK SITUATION OR WITHOUT ENTRY OR WITHOUT ANNOUNCING.

PEOPLE CALL IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR OR COULD BE USED FOR A DRUG INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVING REVIEWED THE RECORDS, IT WAS USED TO COLLECT EVIDENCE OR SEIZE EVIDENCE OR INDICIA OF A CRIME RELATED TO RECORDS OR DRUGS.

THIS WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THAT TO HAVE HAPPENED.

>> SO JUST FOR WHAT COULD BE AN ALLEGED VIOLENT CRIME WOULD BE THE ONLY TIME THESE WARRANTS COULD BE EXECUTED, IS THAT CORRECT OR THE RIGHT WAIVE SUMMARIZING IT?

>> WELL -- WAY OF SUMMARIZING IT?

>> QUICKLY AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO WEEDS ON THIS BUT VIOLENT CRIMES 439, 431.01 CRIMES AS WELL AS THOSE THAT COULD BE DEFINED AS TERRORISTIC HODGE SITUATIONS AND POTENTIAL OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BE IT BUDGET OR OTHERWISE.

THOSE -- BIOLOGICAL OR OTHERWISE.

THOSE WOULD BE THE NEFF A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THOSE BUT THERE IS ALSO A SECOND SET OF NO-KNOCK WARRANT AND THAT IS FOR AN ARREST AS WELL, BUT THE SIMILAR STATUTES WOULD APPLY THERE.

>> AND ALSO, THIS WOULD LIMIT THEM BETWEEN 6:00 A.M. AND 10:00 P.M. AS THE STILL BILL STANDS NOW.

THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS IN THE HOUSE THAT COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE THAT BUT YOURS IS FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. WHY IS THAT TIME SPAN SO IMPORTANT, SIR?

>> WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES, THEY DON'T EXECUTE THESE OTHER THAN AT THOSE PERIODS OF TIME, AND THAT'S THEIR CRITERIA UNLESS THEY'RE AT SOME TYPE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND SO IT'S BEST IN THOSE SITUATIONS TO DO IT WHEN -- THINK ABOUT THE SEQUENCING -- WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T ASLEEP, THEY'RE POTENTIALLY UP.

YOU DO IT LATE IN THE NIGHT.

THE SURPRISE FACTOR IS THERE.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SHOCKED.

AND WHETHER IT WAS LEGITIMATE OR NOT, THINK ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT HOW THE ADRENAL RUSH IS WHEN YOU GET THAT LATE NIGHT PHONE CALL, AND YOU THINK WITH OH, MY GOSH, WHAT'S HAPPENED?

APPLY THAT TO SOMEBODY KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR AT 1:00 OR 2:00 THE IN MORNING AND WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT OR SUSPECT IN THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.

SO WE WANTED TO PUT GUIDELINES AROUND THERE, THAT IT IS BEST TO EXECUTE THESE DURING THOSE PERIOD OF TIMES WHEN GENERALLY IT IS THE WANING HOURS OF INDIVIDUALS.

>> AND WOULD THESE WARRANTS ONLY PERFORMED BY A SWAT TEAM OR A SIMILARLY TRAINED TEAM OR NOT?

>> YES, YOU NEED TO BE IDENTIFYING HAVE IDENTIFIABLE.

YOU YOU NEED TO HAVE THE TRAINING BEHIND THESE TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO EXECUTE THIS TYPE OF A NON-ANNOUNCED NO-KNOCK WARRANT, THEY NEED TO HAVE THE RIGHT TRAINING AND BACKGROUND BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AND DANGEROUS TYPES OF EVENTS THAT POLICE OFFICERS CAN BE INVOLVED IN, THEREFORE, IT IS DANGEROUS TO THE SUSPECTS OR INHABITANTS OR INNOCENT BYSTANDERS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF ENTERING INTO SOMEONE'S RESIDENCE WITHOUT FIRST ANNOUNCING WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE.

>> WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF OFFICERS NOT COMPLYING WITH WHAT COULD BE A NEW LAW IN SENATE BILL 4?

>> WELL, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS SETS UP IN SENATE BILL 4 IS THE CRITERIA FOR WHEN YOU CAN OBTAIN ONE.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH YOU CAN OBTAIN ONE, THE METHODOLOGY IN OBTAINING IT, AND THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT, AND THERE ARE VARIOUS PARTS.

ONE, FOR OFFICERS, IF THEY FALSIFY THE AFFIDAVIT, THEY CAN BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY.

IF THEY OBTAIN EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS, THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF THAT EVIDENCE.

IT CAN ALSO, IF THEY DO THIS AND FALSIFY OR DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IN BOTH CIVIL CLAIMS, AS WELL AS THEIR EMPLOYER AND ALSO IN TYPES OF REVIEW PANELS THAT WOULD LOOK AT THEIR CONDUCT TO SEE IF THERE COULD BE SANCTIONS.

IF THEY VIOLATE THESE WHERE IT WOULD BE SUPPRESSED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION, IT COULD ACTUALLY BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THEM TO SHOW THAT THEY ACTED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE AND FRAMEWORK.

>> SO I NOW WANT TO TURN TO REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT WHO HAS A BILL, HOUSE BILL 21, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, I'LL ASK YOU TO OUTLINE THE BASIC TENANTS OF THAT BILL, BUT DO YOU AGREE WITH SENATE BILL 4?

WILL YOU VOTE FOR IT WHEN IT COMES UP ON THE HOUSE FLOOR?

>> UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME AMENDMENTS ADDED TO SENATE BILL 4 THAT I DEFINITELY CANNOT SUPPORT, SO UNTIL WE HAVE THE DEBATE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS ELEMENTS OF THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS ARE NOT IN SENATE BILL 4, YOU CANNOT MAKE A COMMITMENT AT THIS TIME THAT I WOULD VOTE FOR THE BILL.

SAIL THAT HOUSE BILL 21 DIED IN COMMITTEE SO IT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE.

BUT SOME OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES THAT WE BANNED NO-KNOCK WARRANT, RESPOND CRIES FOR JUSTICE ACROSS LOUISVILLE AND ACROSS KENTUCKY.

WE ALSO MANDATED THE MANDATORY ALCOHOL AND YOU CAN DRUG TESTING OF OFFICERS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DEADLY SHOOTINGS LIKE THE MURDER OF BREONNA TAYLOR.

I SAID IT IN COMMITTEE.

WE DRUG-TEST FORKLIFT DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE AN ACCIDENT.

MY BROTHER IS A TRUCK DRIVER.

HE GETS RANDOM DRUG TESTING.

WEEP SHOULD EXPECT THAT FOR OUR PEOPLE WE PAY WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS.

AND IT'S NAMED AFTER BREONNA TAYLOR, IT'S BREONNA'S LAW.

>> SO SENATE BILL 4 DOES NOT HAVE BREONNA TAYLOR'S NAME.

SHOULD IT?

>> HAVE WOO WE HAVE SEE SEE US WHAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROFFERED ON THE FLOOR, THEY WON'T NOT BE BREONNA'S LAW.

>> AND I WANT TO ASK SENATOR, PRESIDENT STIVERS, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO NAMING THE BILL IN HER MEMORY?

>> THAT'S UP TO THE HOUSE.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE OPPOSED TO IT IF IT HAPPENS.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING I'VE NEVER DONE IN MY CAREER.

SO IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE HOUSE AND THEY THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT HAVEAO, THAT'S FINE -- AMENDMENT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

CAN I DIRECT ONE THING BACK TO WHAT REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT SAID.

>> SURE.

>> THE BILL THAT I FILED IS REFLECTIVE OF DEALING WITH WARRANTS.

AS TO SANCTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE VARIOUS PROTOCOLS OF THEIR POLICING AGENCY, THERE IS ANOTHER BILL, SENATE BILL 80, THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE WORKED ON, AND UNDERSTAND THAT VIOLATIONS OF POLICE PLUTO COLS CAN HAPPEN IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES 10 OF POLICE PROTOCOLS.

LIKE IMPROPER USE OF FORCE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT RELATED TO THE EXPLORERS PROGRAM.

THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IF THEY WANT TO DO MANDATORY DRUG TESTING, ALCOHOL TESTING, I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR LOOKING AT THAT IN CONJUNCTION WALL OTHER TYPES OF POLICE MISCONDUCT, NOT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT A WARRANT SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST THINK IT'S THE WRONG PLACE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION.

>> AND SENATE BILL 80 PASSED THE HOUSE ON FRIDAY.

I DO BELIEVE IT HAD ANAO THAT COMMENTS BACK TO YOU ALL -- AN AMENDMENT.

IS THAT TRUE, FOR CONCURRENCE?

>> I AM UNAWARE OF THAT.

I HAVE YET TO SEE IT.

THAT MAY BE ACCURATE.

I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT BILL COMING FROM -- OVER THE WEEKEND I WAS WORKING ON OTHER ISSUES.

>> SURE.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT WEEK EVER, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT ANY SHOULD ACTUALLY KNOW THIS, BUT I KNOW YOU ALL HAD THAT DISCUSSION FRIDAY.

DID IT HAVE HOUSE AMENDMENTS ATTACHED TO IT THAT WOULD CAUSE THE SENATE TO HAVE TO CONCUR OR OBJECT TO THOSE AMENDMENTS, TO SENATE BILL 80?

>> UNFORTUNATELY, THE AMENDMENT THAT REPRESENTATIVE PROFFERED WHICH WOULD INVOLVE DRUG TESTING AND ALCOHOL TESTING WAS NOT ADDED TO SENATE BILL 80.

THE SENATOR CARROLL SAID THAT HE DID NOT WANT THAT ADD TO THE BILL.

SO NOW WE'RE STILL LEFT THAT WE GO AN BEING AN ISSUE FROM THE NIGHT BROLIN WAS MURDERED.

>> I WANT TO BRING IN JECOREY, AND WE THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN, FOR BEING HERE WITH US.

WE WE KNOW 13 WEEKS AFTER THE KILLING OF BREONNA TAYLOR THAT LOUISVILLE PASSED AN OUTRIGHT NO-KNOCK WARRANT BAN, AND I WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOUR ACTIVISM IN THAT AND WHAT IT DOES -- HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SENATE BILL 4 IN COMPARISON TO WHAT LOUISVILLE HAS ALREADY PASSED.

>> WELL, THE BEEF IS REALLY A MICRO COST EM OF A LARGER ISSUE, IS THAT THERE'S THIS ONGOING WORCESTER CITY OF LOUISVILLE, WHICH IS QUITE ON A ROONIC WHEN YOU CONSIDER HOW -- IRONIC WHEN YOU COMFORT HOW VITAL LOUISVILLE IS TO THE REST OF KENTUCKY.

WE DID SOMETHING WE DID SOMETHING IN HONOR ONE OF OUR NEL OH LOUISVILLEANS WERE KILLED DURING THE NO-KNOCK WARRANT BEING SERVED AND WE DID THAT HERE LOCALLY.

I WAS A PART OF THE ADVOCACY WORK THAT IT TOOK, THE ADVOCACY WORK THAT IT TOCK TO MAKE SURE WE PASSED THAT BILL.

WE EVEN HAD SOME RECANTING LOCALLY WITHIN OUR CITIES A LEGISLATURE SAYING MAYBE WE'LL JUST MAKE THEM MORE DIFFICULT TO GET, LIKE SENATE BILL 4.

AND I SAID NO.

I HAD NO PROBLEM SHOUTING NO TO THE CITY AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE.

YOU COULD NOT SIT ON THE SOCIAL JUSTICE FENCE ANYMORE AFTER 20 AFTER WE HAVE SEEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MARCHING ACROSS THIS NATION DEMANDING FOR CHASING YOU.

CAN'T SAY MAYBE.

YOU CAN'T SAY WE HOPE.

YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT IT COULD BE OR WHAT IT IT WOULD BE.

WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

AND IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY WHERE BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED, WAS MURDERED DURING A NO-KNOCK WARRANT BEING SERVED BY OUR LOCAL LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE CAN'T DO SOMETIMES THE LEGISLATION.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TO DO A COMPLETE BAN.

AND I HAVE ACTUALLY FILED A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 21 IN HONOR OF BREONNA TAYLOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BAN ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH, BUT AS YOU HEARD REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT SAY, THAT'S NO LONGER AN OPENING, AND I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH -- AN OPTION AND I'M HOPING WE CAN WORK WITH SENATOR ROBERT STIVERS TO MAKE SURE WE BAN THEM ACROSS THIS COMMONWEALTH BECAUSE IT'S A COMPLETE CONTRADICTION WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT KENTUCKY AND THE WAY THAT WE CHAMPION OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WE CHAMPION THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, YOU CAN'T HAVE NOE KNOCKS THAT'S HYPOCRISY.

>> I WANT TO BRING IN RYAN STRAW HOO HAS BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY TO ASK THE POSITION OF FOP ON THIS, AND PERHAPS PRESIDENT STIVERS CAN TALK WHERE THE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION AND THE KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF POLICE CHIEFS, WHERE DO THEY STAND.

ARE YOU ALL UNITED IN YOUR EITHER AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH SENATE BILL 4?

>> I THINK WE'RE STILL HAVING ONGOING CONVERSATIONS, AND I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PRESIDENT STIVERS' STAFF.

I GOT THE GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT LAST WEEK.

WE HAVE A POSITION ON IT WITH A FEW CHANGES.

WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT BUT WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME DIFFERENT CHANGES.

>> LIKE WHAT?

>> THINGS LIKE THE DRUG TESTING PORTION OF IT.

THAT DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT, WHICH THAT CAME FROM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT'S HOUSE BILL THAT MAY HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY INCORPORATED, BUT THAT, ON TOP OF THE TIME LIMIT, THE TIMES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT -- >> FOR THE WARRANTS?

>> FOR THE WARRANTS TO BRING THOSE IN.

WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIVE BLANTON'S AMENDMENT TO THAT BECAUSE WE LOOK AT A AND WE THINK TO OURSELVES EVEN THOUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TENDS TO UTILIZE THAT STATUS, WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THAT WORKS FOURS HERE IN KENTUCKY.

AND PART OF THAT IS IN LOUISVILLE, IF YOU LOOK AT A, THAT'S PROBABLY A PREMISE THAT WE COULD WORK WITH, RIGHT?

THOSE TIME LIMITS MAY WORK.

BUT TEG F. WE GO OUT NO KENTUCKY A LITTLE BIT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY ABLE TO KEEP THOSE TIMES.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT INCORPORATING THINGS LIKE SWAT TEAMS, WHICH IS DISCUSSED OR SPECIALIZED UNITS, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STATE POLICE, WHICH SERVE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE OUT IN THE RURAL PARTS, WE'RE NOT SURE IF THEY CAN MAKE IN IT THOSE CERTAIN TIMES.

AND FOR THESE E. NO-KNOCK WARRANTS THAT WE UNDERSTAND NEED SOME REFORM AND WE'RE OKAY WITH WITH THAT AND WE WANT TON PART OF IT THAT CONVERSATION WE STILL WANT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS IN THESE EXIGENT.

>> DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PROCEDURES THAT SENATOR STIVERS LAID OUT IN SB 4 IN GETTING THESE SEARCH WARRANTS AND HAVING A JUDGE SIGN OFF, THOSE OTHER PROCESSES.

DO YOU FIND FAULT IN THAT TYPE OF PROCEDURAL CHANGE?

>> NOT AS IT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.

CLEARLY, IF WE'RE HONEST WITH OURSELVES AS THE POLICE, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY.

WE WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND IF IT TAKES THOSE CERTAIN STEPS AND WE REALLY FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE THAT NOE NO-KNOCK WARRANT, THEN I THINK THAT'S OKAY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HINDER US GETTING OUT THERE TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.

>> SO YOU'VE ALLUDED TO IT AND REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT DID AS WELL ABOUT A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN FILED, AND I HAVEN'T CHECKED IN THE LAST COUPLE HOURS THAT MAYBE MORE HAVE BEEN FILED THAT I'M UNAWARE WE KNOW HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE NUMBER 2 BY REPRESENTATIVE BLANTON HAS FILED THIS AMENDMENT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE WHOLE BODY AND THE HOUSE.

THEY WOULD EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR NO-KNOCK WARRANTS TO MIDNIGHT.

SO WHEN YOU ALLUDE TO AN EXPANDED TIME, WHY IS THE EXTRA TWO HOURS SO CRUCIAL YOU?

SAID ABOUT THE RURAL AREAS, BUT IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY MIDNIGHT SEEMS LOOK THE RIGHT TIME FRAME?

>> I THINK IF WE HAD IT OUR WAY, WE ENERGIESLY HAVE THE TIME LIMIT PART OF IT.

WE UNDERSTAND AND THAT'S A COMPROMISE THAT WE GET.

BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE OUT GOING AND LOOKING AT, OKAY, SO ORGANIZED CRIME, DRUG CARTELS, THINGS THAT WE KNOW OPERATE IN THIS COMMONWEALTH, WITH IF WE HAVE THE EXTRA COUPLE HOURS, MAYBE THAT CHANGES THE WAY THINGS HAPPEN.

MAYBE THAT CHANGES THE WAY WE GET SOMETHING EXECUTED AND ABLE TO HELP AND GET HELP TO PEOPLE.

BUT IF WE HAVE THE FULL-TIME PERIOD, THEN WE KNOW FOR SURE WE CAN WORK AS NECESSARY, BUT I STILL GO BACK TO RURAL AREAS.

I THINK LOUISVILLE, LEXINGTON, NORTHERN KENTUCKY, LOOKING AT THAT TIME FRAME, I THINK I COULD UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE, BUT WHEN WE'RE OUT FARTHER AND WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE STATE POLICE OR MAYBE ON THE ORGANIZATION PUTTING A TIME LIMIT ON IT COULD HINDER US.

>> PRESIDENT STIVERS, I WANT TO COME TO YOU.

THIS VIEWER HAD A QUESTION ON POSTED ON FACEBOOK.

WILL THE STATE LAW CONFLICT WITH THE ORDINANCE ALREADY PASSED BY LOUISVILLE?

ESSENTIALLY, WILL IT TRUMP WHAT LOUISVILLE WAS DONE?

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, PRESIDENT STIVERS?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD IN ANY WAY HINDER WHAT LOUISVILLE HAS DONE BECAUSE IT IS MORE STRINGENT THAN, SO THAT WOULD IMPACT LOUISVILLE ON HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR OFFICES.

WHAT IT WOULD IMPACT IS INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO BE LESS STRINGENT THAN, AND SO THEY COULDN'T BE ANY LESS STRINGENT THAN WHAT HOUSE BILL 4 WOULD SAY.

>> SENATE BILL 4.

>> SENATE BILL, TRUE, SENATE BILL 4.

THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE ON RURAL VERSUS URBAN ON POLICING AND ASSETS THAT PEOPLE HAVE.

AND I SAY THIS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.

YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE AN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IN SENATE BILL 4, IT WILL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IN THE SENATE BECAUSE I WORKED WITH BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT -- AND I GIVE YOU THIS AS A FOR INSTANCE, LIKE IN BOWLING GREEN, THAT A FEW YEARS AGO THEY BELIEVED IN A TERRORIST ITS CELL THERE AND THEY HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION, IF YOU THINK ABOUT A TERRORISTIST CELL, THEN THEY HAVE POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS MASS DESTRUCTION.

TO SEIZE OR SEARCH AND SEIZE FOR THOSE, DO YOU NECESSARILY THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO KNOCK?

I DON'T THINK SO.

IN A HODGE SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING -- A HOSTAGE SITUATION WHERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO FREE A HOSTAGE.

A HOSTAGE IS FACED WITH THE THREAT OF TANK THEIR LIFE AND IS YOU'RE SEEKING THE ABILITY TO COLLECTIVE IN THOSE.

IT HAS TO BE A VERY EXTREME SITUATION, BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE, WHEN THEY THINK THROUGH ACTUAL THE HAPPENINGS, WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD BE LIMITED, VERY LIMITED SITUATIONS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BOTH NO-KNOCK SEARCH WARRANTS AND NO-KNOCK ARREST WARRANTS, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE HAS THEIR OWN SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAMS.

IN MY HOMETOWN, MANCHESTER, POPULATION 1200, WE DON'T.

SO -- AND I CAN TELL YOU, HAVING PRACTICED FOR OVER 30 YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE OCCURRED THAT IT TOOK THREE HOURS OR BETTER TO GET A SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM ON SITE TO DEAL WITH A HOSTAGE SITUATION.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, PRESIDENT STIVERS, AND OTHERS CAN CHIME IN.

THIS COMES FROM DANIEL COBBLE OF LOUISVILLE.

SAYS, WHAT WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO-KNOCKS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIT OF NO-KNOCKS AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR HAD MENTIONED WITH THE CASTLE LAW OR STAND YOUR GROUND AS IT'S KNOWN IN OTHER STATES.

SO THIS PERSON GOES ON TO SAY HOW ARE THEY NOT PROTECTING INNOCENT -- HOW ARE THEY NOT PUTTING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN DANGER?

AND THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THESE WARRANTS, IT BOTH IMPERILS NOT JUST THE PERSON IN THE HOME BUT ALSO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR OFFICERS NEMESIS SO CAN YOU TALK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OF THIS.

AND IS YOUR BILL, DO YOU THINK, CONSTITUTIONAL TALK TO THE SCIENCALITY OF THIS.

>> I ACTUALLY THINK BOTH BILLS WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES THE ABILITY OF INDIVIDUALS GIVING WARRANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEIZURE, BUT IT IS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT SETS THE CRITERIA.

SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK EITHER ONE, AND I SAY THIS, THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE.

IT'S A BAD SET OF FACTS THAT BRINGS US TO THE TABLE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE.

SO I BELIEVE BOTH WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORKS AS SET UP THROUGH EITHER UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION RESPECTIVE AMENDMENTS THERE AND OUR KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION, THAT WE SET THE PARAMETERS OF HOW THEY ARE ACCESSED.

AND GOING THROUGH WHAT WE WOULD SAY A DETACHED AND NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE WHICH MOST KNOW TO BE THE JUDGE, IT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY ARE REFERENCED, BOTH CONSTITUTIONS GIVE THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATIVE BODIES THE ABILITY TO DRAFT A FRAMEWORK FOR HOW THEY ARE OBTAINED AND USED.

>> MR.

STRAW, I DO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE OR STAND YOUR GROUND, AS STATES LIKE FLORIDA HAVE CALLED IT, WHERE IF YOU'RE IN YOUR HOME, YOU CAN USE FORCE TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND THOSE IN YOUR HOME EVEN IF IT RESORTS TO DEADLY FORCE.

SO HOW ARE THESE WARRANTS NOT IN DIRECT CONFLICT OR CLASH WITH THE CASTLE DOCTRINE?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THERE IS THE SAME ISSUE OF HOW THE WARRANTS ARE ISSUED, NUMBER ONE, BUT THEN ALSO I THINK THE CASTLE DOCTRINE IS NOT REALLY BEEN DISCUSSED VERY MUCH, ESPECIALLY FROM THE FOP STANDPOINT, AND SO I THINK PERSONALLY OPINION ON IT, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO IT, BUT I THINK THAT THE -- I THINK THAT THERE'S STILL A LOT TO DISCUSS ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER.

>> YOU ARE WATCHING "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO-KNOCK WARRANT LEGISLATION THAT IS MOVING INTO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SB, SENATE BILL 4 BY PRESIDENT ROBERT STIVERS HAS GOT SOME TRACTION AND WE THINK IT'S ON ITS WAY.

REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT, I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK INTO THE CONVERSATION TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND THESE WARRANTS DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.

WHEN WE USED -- THESE WARRANTS USED IN DRUG RAIDS, DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORIES THESE WARRANTS BEING ISSUED?

WAS THAT THE INTENT FOR IT TO BE USED IN LOW-LEVEL DRUG OFFENSES?

AND IS THERE A PLACE IN YOUR MIND OR VIEW FOR THE NEED FOR THESE WARRANTS, AS YOU'VE HEARD PRESIDENT STIVERS MENTION, A TERRORIST ACTIVITY OR VIOLENT CRIME?

DO YOU FIND SOME LEGITIMACY IN THAT.

>> WELL, THE WHAT ARE ON DRUGS EFFECTIVELY HAS DESTROYED BLACK COMMUNITIES AND BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT'S WHERE THESE NO-KNOCK WARRANTS COME FROM, IS THAT WAR ON DRUGS.

AND WHILE THE INTENTION MAY HAVE BEEN TO ADDRESS LOW-LEVEL OFFENDERS, THAT IS NOT WHAT THESE NO-KNOCK WARRANTS DO TODAY, AND I THINK ABOUT THE FAMILY IN THE RUSSELL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I GROUP.

IT IS IN DISTRICT 41.

AND THE EXPERIENCE THEY HAD WITH THEIR CHILDREN BEING FORCED ON IT AT GUNPOINT BECAUSE OF ONE OF THESE RAIDS.

WE NOT HAVE THAT HAPPEN TO CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

IT IS TRAUMATIZING, EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY TRAUMAIZING, AND IT HAPPENS FAR TOO OFTEN.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

WE AREN'T EXPERIENCING THAT WITH NO-KNOCK WARRANTS.

THEY ARE UNREASONABLE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO BAN THEM ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY IN ORDER TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.

WE HAVE TO RECKON WITH WHAT THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS DONE TO PROCEED DOMINANTLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT ERASING BLACK PEOPLE FROM THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, YOU HAD MENTIONED A FEW MOMENTS AGO ABOUT HOW YOUR SUPPORT WOULD HINGE ON MONITOR THESE AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN FILED WOULD BE APPROVED TO THE BILL.

I THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU PROBABLY STAND ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENT 2 THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED BUT PEAT MINTER, A DEMOCRAT FROM BOWLING GREEN HAS FILED HOUSE BILL AMENDMENT 4 THAT WOULD REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS EXECUTING NO-KNOCK WARRANTS TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE AS LAW ENFORCERS AND ALSO REQUIRE, AND I THINK YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU WERE FOR THIS IN A PRESS CONFERENCE LAST WEEK, THE PRESENCE OF A PARAMEDIC OR EMT WHEN EXECUTING A NO-KNOCK WARRANT.

IF THAT AMENDMENT IS ATTACHED TO SENATE BILL 4, WOULD IT GET YOUR SUPPORT?

AND WHY IS ADVANTAGE EMT ON SITE SO CRITICAL IN YOUR VIEW?

>> THAT AMENDMENT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO ME.

I APPRECIATE REPRESENTATIVE PATTI MINTER OF BOWLING GREEN FOR SPONSORING THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE BREONNA TAYLOR WAS AN EMT WHO WAS LEFT TO DIE ON THE FLOOR OF HER APARTMENT.

NO AID WAS RENDERRERED TO HER WHEN SHE WAS SHOT MULTIPLE SIMONS TIMES, AND SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IF SOMEONE SELLS INJURED IN THE COURSE OF ONE OF THESE WARRANTS BEING SERVED, THAT THERE IS IMMEDIATELY NEARBY, AND THAT IT IS RENDERED FOR SOMEONE SO THEY HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE A SURVIVAL WHEN THEY ARE SHOT BY POLICE.

BREONNA TAYLOR WAS NOT GIVEN THAT FIGHTING CHANCE FOR SURVIVAL.

SO I WILL NOT SAY AT THIS POINT THAT I WILL SUPPORT IF BILL BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENT 3 BY REPRESENTATIVE FUGUEET, SO THAT MIGHT BE ADDED TO SENATE BILL 4.

>> AND SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENT 3.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

APPARENTLY THIS EXTENDS THE ALLOWABLE EXEMPTIONS FOR NO-KNOCK WARRANTS TO BE OBTAINED TO INCLUDE DRUG-RELATED CLASS B AND CLASS C FELONIES.

THAT'S A DEAL BREAKER FOUR, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT?

>> IT'S A DEAL BREAKER FOR ME BECAUSE IT'S THE ANTITHESES WHAT PEOPLE IN LOUISVILLE AND ACROSS KENTUCKY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR, AND IT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BREONNA TAYLOR WAS MURDERED.

IT BASICALLY SAYS WHAT HAPPENED TO HER WAS JUSTIFIED AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE THAT IN THIS SENATE BILL.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT.

>> AND THIS BILL, SENATE BILL 4, ARE YOU EXPECTING A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT OR TOMORROW?

>> TONIGHT WE'RE VOTING ON THE BUDGET BILL, SO PRESIDENT STIVERS PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER THAN ME.

>> PRESIDENT STIVERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION ON WHEN THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BRING THIS UP FOR A FLOOR VOTE?

>> I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM THAT WE NEED TEAK TIME AND WORK THROUGH THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A COMFORT LEVEL, AND I'VE ASKED THEM JUST TO WAIT SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS.

WAS IT LAST FRIDAY?

>> FRIDAY.

>> THURSDAY?

>> FRIDAY.

>> THAT I MET WITH SOME OF THE GROUP OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRAT CAUCUS TO TALK ABOUT THINGS, BUT I ALSO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE MINTERS' AMENDMENT.

IT ALSO INCLUDED AN EXPANSION OF BOTH SETS OF NO-KNOCK WARRANTS TO CONTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES, CHILD AND ADULT TRAFFICKING, AND THESE ARE THE TYPES OF SITUATIONS THAT I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MAY NEED OR THERE MAY BE THE NECESSITY OF A NO-KNOCK WARRANT.

BECAUSE PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE IN DANGER.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT'S POSITION ON THE DRUG OFFENSES, AND I SO HAVE TRIED TO LOOK FROM THE LENS THAT SHE AND OTHERS COME FROM, BUT I ALSO ASK TO LOOK AT CHRIS FUGUEET WHO JUST WENT THROUGH OR IN HIS COMMUNITY WHERE THERE WAS I BELIEVE FENTANYL, AND THIS WAS FAIRLY WELL WRITTEN ABOUT.

IT WAS NOT INGESTED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

PEOPLE WERE EXPOSED TO FENTANYL, AND THREE PEOPLE DIED.

AND SO I'VE TRIED TO DRAFT SOMETHING PARTICULARLY TO FENTANYL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT TAKE INGESTTATION TO BE IMPACTED LIKE COCAINE IS OR OTHER DRUGS.

AND SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THOSE.

I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, I'VE TALKED TO SENATOR GERALD NEAL, SENATOR REGINALD THOMAS ABOUT HOW WE CAN NARROWLY DO THESE THINGS AND ALSO THINKING OF JUST ASSETS AND RESOURCES BETWEEN RURAL, LEXINGTON, LOUISVILLE, NORTHERN KENTUCKY, BOWLING GREEN, PADUCAH, HAVING MORE SETS AND RESOURCES IN THEIR POLICING AREAS THAN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES DO.

>> BUT SENATOR STIVERS, AS YOU KNOW, THE SESSION IS ALSO BEDEVILED BY TIME AND THE TIME CLOCK, SO TOMORROW IS YOUR LAST DAY BEFORE YOU GO INTO THE TEN-DAY VETO RECESS FOR THE GOVERNOR TO CONSIDER VETO, SO IS THIS A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE BILLS THAT COMES TO THE FLOOR, THE LAST TWO DATES OF, AND IF THE GOVERNOR VETOES IT, YOU HAVE NO RESOURCE?

-- YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE?

>> I THINK THAT IF THE HOUSE IS SATISFIED WITH THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SATISFACTION WOULD BE, AND THE SENATE IS AS WELL, BECAUSE AGAIN, I'VE GOT ABOUT AN AND SPOKEN WITH SENATOR NEAL, SENATOR THOMAS TODAY, IF THERE'S UNIFORMITY AND BELIEF THAT THIS IS A FAIR BILL AND IT HAPPENS TO COME OUT ON DAY 29 OR DAY DAY 30, I THINK THE GOVERN WOULD PROBABLY SIGN IT.

IF NOT, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS ACTIONS GLOB SO DO YOU FAVOR, AND THEN I WANT TO GO BACK TO COUNCILMAN ARTHUR, DO YOU FAVOR HOUSE BILL AMENDMENTS 2, 3 AND 4 THAT HAVE BEEN FILED TO THE BILL, TWO OF WHICH REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT TAKES ISSUE WITH?

DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN FILED SO FAR?

THERE COULD BE OTHERS FORTHCOMING.

THERE'S ONE MY MINTER AND THERE'S ONE BY FEW GET, AND THEN THE OTHER BUN BY BLANTON THAT WE DISCUSSED.

ARE YOU OKAY, COPA SETTIC WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS?

PRESIDENT STIVERS?

>> OH, I THOUGHT YOU -- I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT 4 IS.

>> FOUR IS THE ONE BY REPRESENTATIVE PEAT MINTER.

>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS 1.

>> IS THAT 1?

I'M SORRY.

>> YOU DID 4 AFTER OUR CONVERSATION.

>> HAVE DONE 4 SINCE WE MET LAST FRIDAY, SO I'M UNAWARE OF WHAT 4 IS.

I'M SORRY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, CAN YOUING LIGHTEN US ON WHAT 4 IS?

Y.

>> 4 INCLUDES HAVING THE EMT NEARBY AND TIN CIGNA FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO ARE SERVING THE WARRANT, SO IT REFLECTS THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD ON FRIDAY.

>> BUT THAT WAS PART OF HER OTHER AMENDMENT, TOO, I THINK.

>> IT WAS, BUT AFTER AI OUR CONVERSATION.

>> AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY OBJECTS TO THE INSIGNIA, IN FACT, TALKING TO THE OFFICERS, THEY WANT TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED.

AND SPEAKING TO THEM WHEN I THINK WAS REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OR SOMEONE FROM THE HOUSE MENTIONED TO ME ABOUT EMTs, I REACHED OUT AND THEY SAID, LOOK, GENERALLY IN THESE SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAMS, THERE AREEMTs PRESENT, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO HAVE THAT GROUP PRESENT, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN HAVE, IF THERE IS THE NEED FOR AID AND ASSISTANCE, THEY'RE TRAINED.

BUT A GOOD SUGGESTION, AND I SAID THIS TO REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT AND OTHERS, THAT IF THERE IS NOT AN EMT PRESENT IN THE GROUP, THERE SHOULD BE IN THE VICINITY A GROUP THAT CAN RESPOND THAT DOES HAVE THE CAPABILITIES RENDERING AID, IF NEEDED.

>> AND MR.

STRAW, HE WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD IN AGREEMENT THAT YOU WANT OFFICERS TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS WELL.

SO DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT REPRESENTATIVE PATTI MINTER IS PROPOSING?

>> I THINK SHE HAS SEVERAL THINGS IN THERE BUT I THINK PRESIDENT STIVERS ASSISTED PERFECTLY.

THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR IDENTIFYING OURSELVES, NOT TO MENTION HAVING AN EMT ON THERE, AND HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PLACE THAT HAS A SWAT CALL OUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOME SORT OF EMT IF DONE PROPERLY.

>> CROWN ARTHUR, I WANT TOM COULD BACK TO YOU BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW MARCH 13th WAS THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE KILLING OF BREONNA TAYLOR, AND █ KNOW THAT IT WAS A DAY FILLED WITH EMOTIONS, AND SO CAN YOU KIND OF ENCAPSULATE FOR US WHERE THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE IS, AND NOT JUST IN TERMS OF NO-KNOCK WARRANTS BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS AFTER NO-KNOCK WARRANT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED STATEWIDE, WHETHER IT'S WHAT YOU WANTED OR NOT, WHAT'S NEXT?

>> WELL, WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT OUR LOCAL COMMONWEALTH'S OWN EXPERT ON POLICE MILITARISM IS PETER IN EASTERN KENTUCKY AND HE HAS SAID COUNTLESS TIMES THAT BANNING NO-KNOCK WARRANTS IS THE BARE MINIMUM OF WHAT WE CAN DO.

WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND WE KNOW THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS AS WELL.

I'M CONFIDENT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS AS WELL.

BUT I QUESTION, AND I HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT IF WE CAN'T DO THE BARE MINIMUM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOUISVILLE, THE URBAN CENTER OF OUR STATE, AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOUISVILLE AND THE REST OF THE STATE.

THE KENTUCKY HEALTH ISSUES POLL SHOWED THAT OVER HALF OF KENTUCKIANS HAVE FIREARMS.

IN LOUISVILLE WE'RE LOOKING AT 40%.

IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY 48%.

LEXINGTON AREA 52%.

IN WESTERN KENTUCKY 63%.

AND IN EASTERN KENTUCKY 67%.

THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS GAME THAT WE'RE PLAYING WITH HAVING SOMETIMES YOU CAN PERFORM NO-KNOCK WARRANTS, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T.

IT'S VERY DANGEROUS.

AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LARGER LANDSCAPE AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION, AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE BILLS, WEI TO RILE THAT CIVILIANS AND ALSO OFFICERS HAVE BEEN KILLED DURING THESE.

WE HAVE TO REALIZED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN KILLED INCLUDING A YOUTH, INCLUDING A 68-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO WAS AN INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPACTED AND KILLED, SUCH AS BREONNA TAYLOR WAS IMPACTED AND KILLED WHILE THIS WAS BEING PERFORMED.

BUT AS WE TALK ABOUT BEYOND NO-KNOCK WARRANTS, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT EVEN IF YOU BAN NO-KNOCK WARRANTS, EVEN IF YOU ARREST THE OFFICERS WHO KILLED BREONNA TAYLOR, THE REALTY IN LOUISVILLE IS THAT BLACK LOUISVILLEANS ARE A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION, THREE-QUARTERS OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS, THREE-QUARTERS OF THE UNHOUSED, UNSHELTERED POPULATION, THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED AND EVICTED, AND WE ARE THREE TIMES THE POVERTY RATE OF THE REST OF THE CITY, SO THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES.

AND AS I SAID, PETER CONTRACTSKO HAS SAID TIME AFTER TIME THAT IS THE BARE MINIMUM OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE WE ARE BEING PROACTIVE ABOUT SAVING LIVES INSTEAD OF REACTIVE, WHICH IS WHAT I'M HEARING A LOT OF, A WHOLE LOT OF GEORGE BUSH RHETORIC AROUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BUT YET TO HEAR ANY INSTANCES WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THESE NO-KNOCK WARRANTS SAVE LIVES FROM TERRORISTS OR SAVE LIVES IN HOSTAGE SITUATIONS, BUT WE CAN POINT TO PLENTY OF EXAMPLES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INJURED, WHERE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA HAVE THROWN SMOKE BOMBS INTO PLAY PENS OF TODDLERS AND WHERE WE HAVE HAD SOMEONE KILLED LIKE BREONNA TAYLOR.

>> I WANT TO HAVE MR.

STRAW RESPOND TO THAT.

>> SURE.

I THINK THE BIG THING, TOO, AND IS THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IS SO IMPORTANT, BUT ONE-TENTH OF 1% IS THE NUMBER OF NO-KNOCK WARRANTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY SERVED AND EVEN THOUGH A TRAGEDY CAME OF ONE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S GOING TO BE SO MUCH GOOD REFORM THAT ALSO COMES FROM THAT, TOO, I THINK THAT WE ARE FOCUSED SO MUCH ON JUST THE NO-KNOCK ITSELF INSTEAD OF LIKE EVER LOOKING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT REENFORCEMENTS THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM IT.

>> AND SENATOR STIVERS, THIS QUESTION CAME TO US FROM KE TIERRA HERON AS I KNOW YOU KNOW AS WELL AS OTHER MEMBERS ON THIS PANEL, AND WE SHE WANTS TO YOU CLARIFY HOW A NO-KNOCK WARRANT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED POLICE BEING EXPOSED TO FENTANYL.

CAN YOU MAKE THAT CONNECTION BACK TO US AGAIN?

>> HOW A NO-KNOCK WARRANT.

>> HOW A NO-KNOCK WARRANT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED POLICE FROM BEING EXPOSED TO FENTANYL.

YOU MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.

AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEANT THERE.

>> ACTUALLY, WHAT MY COMMENT THERE WAS POINTED AT, THAT YOU HAVE A SUBSTANCE THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS DANGEROUS WITHOUT IT BEING USED, AND YOU DON'T WANT IT DISTRIBUTED OR MIXED INTO THE WATER SYSTEM OR DONE IN A WAY THAT COULD HARM OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INGESTED, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE OFFICERS -- I SHOULD SAY -- RETIRED OFFICERS IN HOUSE BECAUSE THEY FELT IN THOSE SITUATIONS SO IT DIDN'T GET DESTROYED OR SOMEBODY DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING BUT AND GET IN CONTACT WITH IT, THAT IT MAY BE BEST TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF A TOOL AVAILABLE TO THEM.

>> WE'VE GOT ABOUT 18 MINUTES REMAINING, AND I DON'T WANTS YOU TO VEER TOO MUCH AWAY FROM SENATE BILL 4 AND THESE NO-KNOCK WARRANT EFFORTS, BUT I DO WANT TO KIND OF DRAW SOME CONNECTIONS, PRESIDENT STIVERS WIN WANT TO START WITH YOU.

THERE ARE TWO OTHER BILLS YOU MENTIONED, SNOOT BILL 80 THAT DEALS WITH MALFEASANCE AND MISCONDUCT OF POLICE.

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

BUT ALSO I'M CURIOUS HOW ABOUT THAT THE SENATE BILL 211 BY SENATOR DANNY CARROLL THAT DEALS WITH RIOTING OR INSULTING A POLICE OFFICER, IF WE THINK ABOUT THESE VERY TEDIOUS COMMUNITY POLICE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEND RIGHT NOW, DOES SB211 GET AT THAT IN YOUR VIEW?

>> WELL, I THINK, AGAIN, 1-800-YOU HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE LENS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES INVOLVED, HERE IS DANNY CARROLL WHO IS A 22 OR 24-YEAR VETERAN OF THE PADUCAH POLICE FORCE AND WAS IS ASSISTANT CHIEF THERE WHO THINKS THAT THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN TAMPED DOWN BY GETTING ADDITIONAL POLICING TOOLS.

THAT'S THE LENS HE LOOKS THROUGH WHEN THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN SITUATIONS AND SEES INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE OF THE POLICING FORCE AND RETIREES HAVE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THAT.

I CAN'T SAY THAT IT WOR WOULD NOT -- THAT IT WOULD OR WOULD NOT.

IT IS TOUGH IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE THE SOME ARE EMOTIONS, RUNNING HIGH AS TO WHAT REALLY THE BEST COURSE OF CONDUCT IS TO DO.

AND IT'S HARD TO MAKE SOME JUDGMENT CALLS.

NOW, WE CAN PUT PARAMETERS AS WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I THINK BOTH BILLS ARE TRYING TO DO, ON WHAT THINGS SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE USED IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS.

>> SO REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, I WANT TO COME TO YOU TO RESPOND ABOUT SENATE BILL 211 THAT YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT MEASURE?

DOES IT SET UP THE PARAMETERS, JUST AS SENATOR STIVERS SAID?

AND IS THAT A GOOD THING, IN YOUR VIEW?

>> SENATE BILL 211 HAS NOT YET BEEN VOTED ON BY THOUSANDS, AND IT ACTUALLY IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THIS COMMISSION ON RACE THAT THE SENATE STARTED.

I MEAN, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU TALK ABOUT RACIAL EQUITY AND RACIAL JUSTICE AND THEN SENATE BILL 211 WHICH WOULD HAVE MANDATED MY CHILD AND I SPEND TWO DAYS IN JAIL ON THESE TRUMPED-UP CHARGES THAT THE POLICE LEVIED AGAINST US CLAIM CLAIMING THAT WE TRIED TO FIRE WOMAN THE LIBRARY IN SENATE BILL 21.

SENATE BILL 211 ISN'T GOING TO BRING HEALING OR BRING US TOGETHER.

IT'S A DIRECT ATTACK PEOPLE STANDING UP FOR JUSTICE ON BREONNA TAYLOR.

IT'S A DIRECT ATTACKS ON THE MOVEMENT FOR BLACK LIVES.

AND IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS BEEN CLAIMING THIS SESSION THAT IT WANTS TO ADDRESS RACIAL EQUITY AND RACIAL JUSTICE.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, SENATE BILL 211 SHOULD DIE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

>> SENATOR STIVERS EVER STIVERS, I WE DON'T TO ASK YOU BECAUSE WE RECALL THAT REPRESENTATIVE ATTICA SCOTT AND HER DAUGHTER DID MACE CHARGES THAT WERE DROPLET FOR RIOTUS BEHAVIOR.

IS THAT WHAT SENATE BILL 211 SEEKS TO GET AT?

>> NO, IT IS NOT.

AND WHEN DANNY TALKED TO ME ABOUT THIS, I SAID I KNEW HE WAS GOING TO GET CRITICISM FROM BOTH SIDES BUT HE'S COMING FROM HIS LENS BECAUSE THIS WOULD APPLY TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE IN FRANKFORT PROBABLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AS WELL FOR WHAT THEY DID, WHAT THEY SAID, ACTIONS THEY TOOK ON THE STEPS OF THE CAPITOL.

SO IF YOU THINK THROUGH THAT, AND DANNY UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS GOING TO DRAW CRITICISM FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE OR AN OFFICER COULD DO.

IT TRULY, AGAIN, IT IS A TOUGH SITUATION THAT ALL WERE INVOLVED IN WHERE THE EMOTIONS WERE RUNNING HIGH, AND I JUST -- I DO NOT THINK DANNY HAD ANY ILL WILL IN WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO.

HE IS JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM THE LENS OF A POLICE OFFICER AND 20 SOME ODD YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

>> AND I DO WANT TO CORRECT.

I PROBABLY MISSPOKE.

IT HAS NOT BEEN VOTED IN IN THE HOUSE BUT IT WATS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE WHERE IT WAS PASSED AND IT'S WAITING FOR A FLOOR VOTE.

4 STRAW, I WANT TO GET TO YOU ABOUT THIS BILLUT NOT TO STRAY TOO MUCH BUT I THINK THESE THINGS ARE ALL VERY INTERCOURSE, AND I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT SENATE BILL 211 AND WHY YOU BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY.

>> WE TESTIFIED IN FAVOR IT AND WE'RE ALSO IN FAVOR OF SENATE BILL 80 IF WE DECIDE TO GO BACK TO THAT.

NOBODY WANTS BAD COPS OUT THERE.

BUT FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT ON SENATE BILL 2 LISTEN WAS THERE IN LOUISVILLE LAST SUMMER AS A CHAPLIN.

I'M THE OUR STATE LENGTH CHAPLIN OOH A FORMER STUDENT OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AND SO I WAS WITH SOME OF THE CLERGY CAME OUT THERE, AND I WAS ALSO WITH POLICE OFFICERS, AND THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN PROTESTORS AND RIOTS.

AND THERE WERE PROTESTS AT NIGHT AND DURING THE DAY I THINK YOU HEAR SOME OF THE RHETORIC SAYING ONCE IT WENT DARK, THAT'S WHEN EVERYTHING HAPPENED BUT THAT THE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE, EITHER, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS HOLDING THE LINE WE STOOD THERE, PRAYED WITH THEM, WE WALKED WITH THEM, LISTENED, WE LISTENED TO PROTESTS.

I THINK THAT 211 BROUGHT IN A LOT OF GOOD CONVERSATION.

THERE WAS ALSO TIMES WHERE YOU SAW PEOPLE GET IN AN OFFICER'S FACE MULTIPLE TIMES AND TRY TONIGHT CITE THEM TO GIVE A PHYSICAL TYPE -- TRY TO INSIGHT THEM TO GIVE A PHYSICAL TYPE OF RESPONSE.

I THINK WE NEED PROTECTION FOR THE OFFICER.

I TESTIFIED THAT PART OF 211 BENEFITS THE POLICE AS BEING ABLE TO REMOVE A PERSON OR PERSONS FROM THAT SITUATION SO IF PEOPLE ARE PIECE PEACE-FREE PROTESTING THEY DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM THAT PROTEST BECAUSE WE VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT IS THE CORNER SAN ANTONIO OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER I WANT TO GO TO YOU IN LOUISVILLE AND ASK YOU YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS MEASURE, SENATE BILL 211, AND INSULTING A POLICE OFFICER.

YOU'VE BEEN IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'VE BEEN REALLY VALIANTLY ON THE LINES OF THE PROTESTS, SO TELL US YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS BILL.

>> SENATE BILL 211 IS REALLY A SILLY BILL AND AT THE SAME TIME A SERIOUS BILL.

IT'S SILLY BECAUSE IT'S OUTRIGHT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND IT'S SERIOUS BECAUSE IT REALLY SENDS A STRONG MESSAGE, IT SENDS A STATEMENT THAT SOME OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, SOME OF THE PEOPLE ACROSS THIS COMMONWEALTH CARE MORE ABOUT WHITE FEELINGS THAN BLACK KILLINGS.

>> I WANT TO BRING UP THAT POINT ABOUT SPEECH, THAT THIS IS A SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH, AND YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT FURTHER, CROWN, BUT I WANT TO GET THAT -- COUNCILMAN BUT YOU WANT TO GET THAT RESPONSE FROM PRESIDENT STIVERS.

DO YOU IN ANY WAY FEEL THAT THIS MEASURE, PRESIDENT STIVERS, SUFFOCATES FREE SPEECH?

>> IT DEPENDS ON FACT SITUATIONS.

AND SO MANY OF THESE THINGS ARE FACT-SPECIFIC.

AND WE GO BACK TO THE OLD LAW SCHOOL EXAMPLES THAT IF YOU'RE IN A THEATER AND YOU PURPOSELY YELL "FIRE, FIRE!"

JUST TO CREATE A DISTURBANCE, NOT TO TRULY INFORM PEOPLE, THAT IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.

SO IT'S FACT-SPECIFIC AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THE EVENT, AND IT IS HARD TO DEFINE WHAT IS A SMOTHERING OR -- OF SPEECH, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS IN AND AROUND THOSE WORDS, HOW THEY'RE SAID, AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY'RE SAID IN.

>> AND IT SEEMS FOR MANY THAT I'M SAYING ON TWITTER, IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE, SIR, RIGHT?

AND SO -- AND HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THE OFFICER HEARING THE INSULT AND THE INTENT BY THE PROTESTS, RIOTER TO MAKE A POINT, TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES?

>> WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL, VIRTUALLY ALL LAWS, P. WHEN YOU START TRYING TO DEFINE WHETHER YOU'RE A FIRST OFFENSE, SECOND OFFENSE OR WASAS WE CALL FIRST DEGREE, SECOND DEGREE, CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, THEY'RE ALL YOU OFFENSE.

SPECIFICS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ACT.

IS.

IT MAY BE MADE UP BY ACTIONS.

IT MAY BE MADE UP BY SPEECH.

IT MAY BE MADE UP BY A COMBINATION OF ACTIONS AND SPEECH.

THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO JURY TRIALS BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETIMES QUITE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, AND THEN SOMETIMES, AS YOU GET INTO, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, AND IT DEPENDS.

AGAIN, ON THE FACT SITUATION.

AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT CIRCLE EVIDENCE, THERE'S NOTHING -- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC BUT YOU CAN BUT SEVERAL STRANDS ACTIONS AND EVENTS TOGETHER TO MAKE A CASE THAT SOMEBODY HAS BROKEN THE LAW, AND SO IT IS A TOUGH ISSUE.

I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SHYING AWAY FROM THAT, AND IT WILL CREATE VOCAL OPPOSITION, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.

>> I ALMOST CALLED REPRESENTATIVE STRAW.

DID YOU WANT THAT PROMOTION OR NOT?

MR.

STRAW, DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENT ON THAT?

I DO WANT TO REVISIT SENATE BILL 80.

>> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON YOU COUNCILMAN'S ARTHUR'S STATEMENT, WHITE FEELINGS AND BLACK HEALINGS.

I THINK IT'S THAT TYPE OF RHETORIC, AND I'M HEAL LOOKING FOR TO HOPEFULLY MEETING HIM AND GETTING A CHANCE TO TALK WITH HIM, BUT IT'S TO THAT TYPE OF RHETORIC THAT ISN'T HELPING THESE SITUATIONS.

MY SERVICE AS A A PAROLE OFFICER WAS IN WEST END.

I SHARED THE STORY WERE REPRESENTATIVE ANXIETY MADE SURE TO IMMERSE MYSELF IN THAT COMMUNITY TO LEARN BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN THAT COMMUNITY THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAD POLICE RISEN, COMMITTED CRIMES, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF HURT, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE GROWING UP IN THAT COMMUNITY AND THAT THAT WAS LIKE BUT I THINK THESE CONVERSATIONS IS WHAT THE FOP AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IS LOOKING FOR SO THAT WE CAN LEARN AND THEY CAN LEARN FROM US, TOO, SO WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE.

>> CROWN ARTHUR, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE MIGHT HAVE AN ENGAGEMENT OR COFFEE WITH MR.

STRAW.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S AFTER A DIFFERENT BETWEENS BEING DIVISIVE AND BEING OBSERVANT.

I'M SIMPLY OBSERVING.

WHEN WE HAVE STATE LEGISLATORS CREATING BILLS THAT ARE BASED ON THEIR EMOTIONS AND WE COMPARE THAT TO THE FACT THAT BREONNA TAYLOR WAS KILLED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MICHAEL NEWBIE, MY FAMILY WAS KILLED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR DEMONGIE JORDAN WHO SHOULD HAVE TURNED 24 YEARS HEALED THE DAY BEFORE BREONNA TAYLOR'S DEATH ANNIVERSARY BUT HE DID NOT BECAUSE HE WAS SHOT 17 TIMES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHITE FEELINGS VERSUS BLACK KILLINGS, AND THOSE ARE JUST THREE EXAMPLES IN OUR CITY.

>> AND SO COMING FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, MR.

STRAW, AND I'LL LET THIS BE THE FINAL COMMENT ON THAT POINT, DO YOU SEE HIS PAIN AND FEEL HIS PAIN?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE UNIQUE POSITION THAT I GET TO BE IN NOW, TOO TIE TO MOVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FOP A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THAT, TO LISTEN TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS SO THAT WE IN THE POLICE WORLD BE LEARN FROM THAT AND BE BETTER FOR IT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR THOSE STORIES AND THOSE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN.

>> AND OF COURSE ANECDOTALLY WE HEAR THAT THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE IS SOMETIMES THE ANTITHESIS TO THESE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AND SO STRENGTHENING THAT RELATIONSHIP AND IN AN AUTHENTIC WAY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WOULD BE A GOOD MOVEMENT GOING FORWARD.

IN THE SIX MINUTES REMAINING I WANT TO REVISIT REAL QUICKLY SENATE BILL 80.

SENATOR STIVERS, YOU MENTION THIS HAD A WHILE BACK ABOUT MALFEASANCE AND MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD CAUSE THE DISMISSAL, TERMINATION, NOT A REASSIGNMENT OF AN OFFICER BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT OFFICERS WHO GO FROM DEPARTMENT TO DEPARTMENT AFTER THEY HAVE HAD A STRING OF MISCONDUCTED EVER DUCT CASES.

CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT BILL, AND I'LL ASK REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT ABOUT HER THOUGHTS ON IT AS WELL.

>> I THINK SENATE BILL 80, WHO AGAIN WAS SPONSORED BY DANNY CARROLL, AND WHAT MR. SHAW SAYS, NOBODY WANTS A BAD POLICE OFFICER, AND I'M GOING TO LINK BACK TO THE EXPLORERS PROGRAM IN LOUISVILLE.

AND OFFICERS WHO WENT UNDER INVESTIGATION GET TO RESIGN OR RETIRE AND THE INVESTIGATION CEASES.

THAT WILL STOP WITH SENATE BILL 80.

AND IF INDIVIDUALS ARE THERE, OTHER AGENCIES NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS AND WHY THEY LEFT.

AND WE DO NOT NEED TO BE CERTIFYING OFFICERS TO GO INTO OTHER POLICING AGENCIES IF THEY HAVE VIOLATED VARIOUS CODES OF CONDUCT.

I THINK SO MUCH ABOUT THIS EXPLORERS PROGRAM AND WHAT WENT ON THERE, AND IF I'M NOT BADLY MISTAKEN, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL INDICTMENTS RETURNED, BUT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS DO THIS AND THEY KNOW THEY CAN HOP FROM VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO AGENCY TO AGENCY, AND BY DOING THAT AVOID ANY TYPE OF RAMIFICATIONS OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT, AND THAT STOPS BECAUSE I WILL SAY THIS, IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT BREEDS CONTEMPT AND DISTRUST AMONG ANY COMMUNITY, THAT WOULD BE IT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO COMMENT, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, RENEE QUESTIONNAIRES TO START BY SAYING THAT OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY IS SET UP TO THE BENEFIT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THEY HAVE AN ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS IN KENTUCKY.

THEY HAVE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN JUSTICE FORGAVE MCATEE WHO IS WA KILLED LAST YEAR BY LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE NATIONAL GUARD IN PARTICULAR, AND YET WE HAVE SENATE BILL 211, SENATE BILL 80.

WE'LL SEE IF THAT ACTUALLY DOES WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO DO.

BUT WE HAVE SENATE BILL 211 WHICH IS REALLY DESIGNED TO HARASSES AND INTIMIDATE AND SHUT DOWN THE PROPHECIES FROM BLACK PEOPLE.

AND BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS TAUNTING TO A POLICE OFFICER, WHAT MAKES IT SO HEARTBREAKING FOR ME, RENEE, IS THAT LAST NIGHT I WAS ON A CALL WITH MY FATHER.

WE GREW UP IN THE PROJECTS IN LOUISVILLE, AND HE SHARED A STORY WITH ME OF A FRIEND OF HIS WHO WAS ARRESTED BOUGHT HER FUTURE HIS FIST UP, HIS BLACK POWER FIST, HE PUT IT UP IN THE FACE OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO ARRESTED HIM FOR DOING THAT.

HE CONSIDERED THAT TAUNTING.

SO WHERE DOES IT BEGIN AND WHERE DOES IT END?

WHEN DO POLICE GET HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS?

WHY ARE WE AS BLACK PEOPLE ALWAYS UNDER ATTACK BECAUSE WE SPEAK UP FOR OUR RIOTS AND BECAUSE WE ARE MARCHING FOR JUSTICE?

>> MR.

STRAW, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THAT RESPONSE OF HAVING A FIST IN THE FACE AND THAT BEING CONSIDERED AN INSULT.

>> SURE.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT'S STORY FROM LAST SUMMER WAS DIFFICULT TO HEAR AND ALSO TO HEAR ABOUT THIS PHONE CALL TOO.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AND I HAD GIVEN A QUOTE TO THE COURIER-JOURNAL WITH THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION, I THINK IT WILL BE HARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, SHOULD THIS GO THROUGH, THAT WE DO DETERMINE WHERE DOES IT START AND WHERE DOES IT END.

AND AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE I KEEP HARPING ON CONVERSATIONS, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED AND THE POINT OF THIS BILL IS TO GO IN MAKE SURE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN REMOVE A BAD ACTOR FROM THE MIDDLE OF A PROTEST, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, JUST BASED ON THAT STORY, THAT'S NOT AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE, EVEN IN THAT, THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THAT.

THAT'S NOT CAUSING ANY ISSUE.

>> SO REAL QUICKLY, WE'RE GOING TO RETURN BACK TO SENATE BILL 4, AND SENATOR STIVERS JIBS WANTED TO ASK YOU THAT BODY CAMERAS NOT -- OR ARE THEY REQUIRED IN YOUR LEGISLATION TO BE WORN AND ACTIVATED DURING THESE -- DURING INSTANCES WHEN A E. NO-KNOCK KNOCK WOULD BE EXECUTED?

>> YES.

>> THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER?

YES, THEY ARE.

>> AND SO -- >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

YES, THEY ARE.

>> VERY GOOD.

BECAUSE THAT I WAS PART OF HOUSE BILL 21.

WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THAT IN THERE, SIR, I KNEW THE ANSWER BUT I WANTED OUR AUDIENCE TO KNOW AS WELL.

SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS GOES.

TOMORROW, AS WE SAID, IS THE LAST DAY BEFORE THE TEN-DAY VETO VEST.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU HOW OPTIMISTIC ARE YOU ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WORDS OR PESSIMISTIC ARE YOU ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION?

>> WELL, THIS LEGISLATIVE SHE'S SHOWN ME THAT OPTIMISM IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO HAVE.

I WISH THAT I COULD, BUT THIS SESSION HAS TRULY BEEN PAINFUL FOR MANY OF US ACROSS KENTUCKY WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, AND IN PARTICULAR BLACK PEOPLE WHO ARE BARELY REPRESENTED HERE IN THE STATE CAPITOL, SO MANY NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WHAT I WILL HOPE, THOUGH, IS THAT WE CAN AT LEAST MAKE SOME BAD BILLS LESS BAD AND BILLS THAT ARE HALFWAY DECENT, LEV THEM ALONE AND LET THEM BE HALFWAY DECENT.

>> I THANK YOU ALL, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT, SENATE PRESIDENT ROBERT STEVENS YOU HAVE HAD AN EXTREMELY BUSY SESSION AND DAY, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN JE CORE ARTHUR AND MR. RYAN STRAW WITH THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE.

IT'S BEEN A GOOD CONVERSATION AND ONE YE WE NEEDED TO HAVE.

HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE IT GHEEN.

YOU CAN CATCH UP ON THE DAYS NEWS IN FRANKFORT MY COLLEAGUE CASEY PARKER-BELL WILL HAVE A REPORT AT 11:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME RIGHT HERE ON KET.

"LEGISLATIVE UPDATE" WILL GIVE YOU A RUNDOWN ALL THE THE HAPPENINGS TODAY WHICH INCLUDE THE PASSING OF A ONE-YEAR STATE BUDGET.

SO MUCH MORE COMING UP TOMORROW.

I'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT AT 11:00 FOR "LEGISLATIVE UPDATE."

UNTIL THEN, TAKE REALLY GOOD CARE.