“FAIR”ness and Forfeiture: New Bill and Justice Department Order Seek to Reign in Controversial Police Practice

Matt Dearmond, KLJ Staff Editor

To the pleasure of Fifth Amendment advocates, a thirty-year federal policy may be coming to an end. On Tuesday, January 27, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reintroduced a bill known as the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act. The bill would greatly limit law enforcement’s ability to seize the assets of individuals without a warrant or charging them with a crime, and would redirect proceeds from these “civil asset forfeitures” to the Treasury Department’s General Fund. This bill comes less than two weeks after departing Attorney General Eric Holder announced that local and state police would be barred from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges, using a Justice Department program known as “equitable sharing.”[1]   Continue reading

Not for Human Consumption: How Inept Legislative Policy Proliferates the Synthetic Drug Problem

Note | 103 KY. L. J. ONLINE 3 | Feb. 22, 2015

Todd J. Weatherholt[1]

The “war on drugs”[2] is facing a new opponent, one that is sophisticated and dynamic, but unfortunately whose dangers go widely undocumented.[3] As if there were not enough problems with other classes of drugs for authorities, a new “underappreciated” category – synthetic drugs – has gained tremendous momentum within the last few years in the United States and around the world.[4] These substances, although widely eradicated in neighborhood gas stations and head shops, remain easily obtainable over the internet.[5] The industry, which targets drug-naïve teenagers and young adults through the combination of shiny packaging with familiar cartoon characters and vibrant names such as Ivory Wave, Spice, and Cloud Nine, generates an estimated $5 billion dollars annually.[6] Unfortunately, the synthetic drug enigma facing our nation is not merely the result of these products’ accessibility, but likewise due to their easily manipulative characteristics, which help manufacturers circumvent existing laws.[7] As authorities identify specific chemical components to outlaw, rudimentary chemists simply modify existing drug compositions slightly to escape the law.[8] Continue reading

Volume 103, Issue 2

Print Archive: Volume 103, Issue 2 (2014-2015)


103 KY. L. J. 169 | Text Me: A Text-Based Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. Section 2255(e) | Jennifer Case

103 KY. L. J. 199Giving Thanks: The Ethics of Grateful Patient Fundraising | Stacey Tovino

103 KY. L. J. 237Federal Deference to State Agency Implementation of Federal Law | Emily Stabile


103 KY. L. J. 269Quality Assurance Privilege in Nursing Home Litigation: Why Kentucky Should Adopt the Narrow Approach | Hannah Jamison

103 KY. L. J. 291Regulation of the Pay Television Market: Why a la Carte Cable Is Not the Solution but Giving FCC More Power Is | Jacob Moak

Equal Protection of Grocery Stores in the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 102 KY. L. J. ONLINE 7 | June 9, 2014

Thomas E. Rutledge[1] and Stacy C. Kula[2]

The United States alcoholic beverage industry is unique as it is the only industry for which two amendments to the Federal Constitution have been passed. The first of those amendments, the ill-fated Eighteenth, enacted nationwide Prohibition.[3] After the complete failure of that “Noble Experiment,”[4] the Twenty-First Amendment was enacted, ending Prohibition and vesting in the various states the power to regulate the manufacture, purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages.[5] Continue reading