Judge sets continued suppression hearing in Clinton County case where informant reliability is contested
Loading...
Summary
A Clinton County hearing recessed to Feb. 12 after prosecutors and defense lawyers debated whether officers independently verified an informant's tip that led to a search of Shirley Kannester's home; the deputy who secured the warrant said officers found cash, pills and scales during the search.
A judge in Clinton County on Thursday ordered lawyers to brief and return on a suppression motion after a contested hearing over an informant‑based search of a Russell County residence.
The Commonwealth said its affidavit relied on an arrestee’s statement that she had just left the residence at 656 Cat And Mouse Road and described recent drug use there; Deputy Thomas Penderfinance testified that officers then obtained a search warrant and, on the same night, found cash, prescription pills, suspected marijuana and digital scales in what the deputy said was the defendant’s bedroom.
Defense counsel pressed the deputy on cross‑examination, arguing the affidavit’s claim of a “following independent investigation” was limited to questioning the arrestee and that officers had no independent, contemporaneous corroboration tying the vehicle or the activity directly to the house. “There was no independent investigation” beyond the arrestee’s tip, according to defense questioning of the deputy.
The Commonwealth responded that officers also relied on prior knowledge that the address was in a high drug‑traffic area and that the totality of information — the traffic stop, the field test at the stop and the arrestee’s statements — supported probable cause for the warrant. The prosecution also told the court it would assert informant‑identity privilege under Kentucky law and asked the judge for in‑camera review if necessary.
The judge directed the parties to submit briefs and set a continued hearing for Feb. 12 to determine whether the evidence should be suppressed. No final ruling was issued at Thursday’s appearance.
What it means: The outcome of the suppression motion could determine whether the evidence seized in the contested search will be admitted at any subsequent trial. If the judge finds the affidavit insufficiently corroborated, the Commonwealth may need to proceed without the seized items or seek an alternative charging strategy.
The matter was called as Commonwealth v. Shirley Kannester. Deputy Thomas Penderfinance was the principal witness; the court scheduled further briefing and the suppression hearing for Feb. 12.
