Background
Mary L. Railey discussed self-exclusion from Derby City Gaming with its employees in 2019. Although she refused to visit the facility’s office to complete the usual paperwork, the security director testified that he read the self-exclusion form to her by telephone and that she acknowledged she would no longer be permitted on the property. Railey later returned twice and left when asked.
During a third visit in June 2021, Railey left after a security supervisor approached her and tried to verify her identity. Brendan Kaiser, an off-duty Louisville Metro Police Department officer working security, pursued her vehicle, stopped her, handcuffed and questioned her, searched her purse and vehicle, and arrested her for third-degree trespass while citing her for disregarding a stop sign. Railey sued Kaiser on several tort theories and also sued Derby City Gaming under respondeat superior. The circuit court granted Derby City Gaming summary judgment but only partially granted Kaiser’s motion, concluding that he might not be entitled to qualified official immunity for conduct associated with the arrest and restraints.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court applied the wrong procedure when considering Kaiser’s qualified-immunity defense. Under Kentucky precedent, qualified official immunity is immunity from suit, not merely liability, and the trial judge—not a jury—must make the limited factual findings needed to resolve the defense. The judge must examine the statutes, regulations, rules, or policies governing the challenged conduct to classify it as ministerial or discretionary and, if discretionary, determine whether it was performed in good faith and within the officer’s authority.
The circuit court did not make the necessary findings concerning Kaiser’s compliance with KRS 431.015(2) and Louisville Metro Police Department standard operating procedures. Its statement that Kaiser “may not” be entitled to immunity did not resolve the defense. The appellate court therefore vacated the denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment, as well as the premature ruling that genuine factual disputes existed concerning whether the arrest was justified, and remanded for explicit findings and an immunity determination. It affirmed the remainder of the order and expressed no view on the merits of Railey’s underlying claims.
Key Takeaways
- A Kentucky trial court deciding qualified official immunity must make limited factual findings from the record and is not confined by ordinary summary-judgment strictures.
- Whether challenged official conduct is ministerial or discretionary, and whether discretionary conduct was performed in good faith, are questions for the trial court rather than the jury.
- The circuit court must resolve immunity before deciding whether disputed facts concerning the underlying tort claims require a jury trial.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces Kentucky’s procedure for resolving qualified official immunity at the earliest opportunity. A trial court cannot defer the defense through tentative language or send its essential components to a jury; it must identify the governing legal directives, make record-based findings, and expressly decide whether immunity applies.
The ruling does not establish that Kaiser is immune or determine whether Railey’s arrest was lawful. It requires the circuit court to answer those threshold immunity questions before the litigation proceeds.