Judges raise concerns about ‘Amanda’s Bill’
By Beth Musgrave – bmusgrave@herald-leader.com
FRANKFORT — After Susan Johnson left an abusive ex-boyfriend more than 30 years ago, he tracked her down, put a gun to her head and said he would shoot her if she didn’t come back to him.
He didn’t shoot, but she’s never forgotten that experience as she hears domestic violence cases as Chief District Judge for Johnson, Lawrence and Martin counties.
Still, Johnson was one of eight judges to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding their concerns about House Bill 1, which would allow judges to order electronic tracking devices to protect victims in domestic violence cases.
All of the judges said Thursday that they were in favor of the bill but had concerns about how it would be implemented.
“The worst thing that we could do is give them a false sense of protection,” said Circuit Judge Gene Clark, a family court judge for Clay, Jackson and Leslie counties.
Sponsored by House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, the bill passed the House last month. It was proposed after the shooting death of Amanda Ross, who was gunned down outside of her Lexington home on Sept. 11.
Ross had sought court protection from her former fiance, Steve Nunn, before her death. Nunn has been charged with her murder but has pleaded not guilty.
The judges’ concerns include questions about how tracking systems will be funded, whether it is constitutional to restrict behavior in civil proceedings and whether global positioning devices will work in many of the rural counties where cellular phone service is spotty at best.
“GPS or cell phones don’t work in significant parts of my three counties,” Clark noted.
The bill says the accused must pay for the tracking device but Clark and other judges said its unlikely that many could pay the full amount — anywhere between $7 and $12 a day.
The vast majority of the people who are referred to domestic violence counseling in his jurisdiction — about 92 percent — can not afford to pay for counseling or can only pay a portion of it, Clark said.
The measure does specify that a county would not be stuck with a bill if the accused couldn’t pay, but Clark expressed concern that the GPS provider may pull out if too many people couldn’t pay for the service.
The bill also says that law enforcement would conduct a risk assessment to see if someone qualifies for such a device, but judges said the statute does not spell out the criteria for such an assessment. Moreover, many law enforcement officials aren’t trained to do such work. Some jurisdictions only have a few officers in a county, the judges said.
There are at least 18 other states that have passed similar legislation but it appears that tracking devices are used only in criminal cases in most of those states. Emergency protection orders and domestic violence orders are civil matters, the judges said.
Some judges said they would favor using the device after there has been a violation of a domestic violence order, which is a criminal offense.
Stumbo has said that he believes restriction of movement in a civil case is constitutional.
After Thursday’s hearing, Stumbo said he believes that the judge’s concerns will not derail the bill.
Stumbo said his research has shown that tracking systems are used in civil proceedings in other states.
Dale Emmons, a spokesperson for the family of Amanda Ross, said it’s typical for concerns about a bill to be vetted during the legislative process.
“We want to make sure that we give them the tools that can save people’s lives,” Emmons said. “I want all of the issues to be brought up and vetted. I’m confident we’ll get a good bill.”
Sen. Tom Jensen, R-London, and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the bill will have more hearings before a vote is taken by the committee.
Filed Under: Greg Stumbo • KY Courts • KY General Assembly
About the Author: 
“Stumbo has said that he believes that the restriction of movement in a civil case is constitutional”.
I guess all the heavy metal toxins from mine run off to the big sandy river has finally had its effect on Stumbo. What an idiot.
Innocent until proven guilty. Wearing an ankle device before you are found guilty is a violation of one’s Constitutionel Rights. I will be watching closely to see who votes in favor of this bill and then doing my best to get them voted out of office.
Stumbo should the interpretation of the law to the judges, just as the judges have left corruption up to the politicans (see Bill Nighbert).
The whole argument over restricting movement in a civil matter doesn’t make much sense to me. They already place orders on the accused in DV cases to restrain them from being in proximity of the victim.
The proposed system only gives the victim and police a way to know when that order is violated. Doesn’t it?
YEP sounds like this may be a move for press rather than a solution..
I wonder how Mr. Dale Emmons would feel if someone made him wear one before he was proven guilty. Think about it Mr. Emmons as someone could falsely accuse you. That is what is questionable about this bill, not to mention it is all about Amanda Ross and not the others that have died.
It’s not only that its criminal penalty being used in the civil courts; EVERYONE KNOWS that the Kentucky family courts are majorly messed up. Why would anyone give more power to these courts when there are gross injustices taking place there already without AOC doing anything to certain out of control family judges??
The fact that Amanda Ross was shot is a tragedy. But it was also a tragedy that her family and friends did nothing to intervene when a very young girl started dating a man as
old as her own father. This was sick in itself.
Amen, finally someone that seen it the way I did, if you play with fire, sooner or later you will get burned.
Concerns that need to be answered.
Good questions.
Finally someone has the courage to ask questions, but I fear that politics will be put before justice.
Stumbo held a political rally at a funeral home, and touted legislation, solely to seek votes. Just and meaningful legislation to prevent domestic violence was not on the menu. Stumbo, his cronies, and the media refused to address in a candid, unbiased way the many unjust and unfair aspects in his proposed legislation. It wouldn’t be politically correct to do so, but it would be morally right.
If this bill becomes law, could a woman seeking to punish a man for nothing related to domestic violence, go before a Family Court Judge, and allege, with no evidence, that the man is “one of the most dangerous”, and result in an innocent man suffering this horrific punishment? YES. Miscarriages of justice will occur all too often under Stumbo’s political ploy.
When Stumbo’s bill becomes law, could a very possible innocent man be fined in excess of $15,000.00, because of nothing more then an allegation, possibly false, by a woman? YES. Miscarriages of justice will occur all too often under Stumbo’s political ploy.
It isn’t just innocent men who are at risk with this bill. There have been instances where politically connected men filed EPO’s just to get custody of their kids so they don’t have to pay child support.
I feel terrible for Amanda’s family. However, if Amanda had been poor without any political connections- she would not have been able to get an EPO/DVO at all against Nunn. This is the honest truth. Until either AOC or the legislature does something about the lawlessness taking place in certain courts- especially those in Pike and Floyd County- this abuse of the legal process will continue against women.