KY puts Virus violators on ankle monitors or under house arrest


Officials in Louisville are placing ankle monitors on people exposed to coronavirus or who have the illness, CNN reported, CNN reported.

The Democrat Governor who is mandating this is releasing prisoners at the same time.

In Louisville, Kentucky, judges are ordering ankle monitors put on residents who have been in contact with coronavirus patients and refuse to isolate.

A judge ordered one resident to stay at home after refusing to self-quarantine. CNN affiliate WDRB reports that the person, identified as D.L. in the court order, is living with “someone who has tested positive for the illness and another person who is a presumptive case.”

Family members said that after exposure D.L. was leaving the house often. D.L. didn’t respond to health department messages and a judge turned around ordered the Department of Corrections to fit D.L. with an ankle monitor.

He doesn’t have the illness.

In California, if you have HIV/AIDS, you can expose other people without committing a crime.

Another man was put under house arrest after he went out shopping despite having tested positive for the coronavirus, according to WDRB.

Kentucky guidelines only allow life-sustaining businesses to remain open, along with charitable and social services.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has recommended all schools remain closed through May 1st and has expanded travel restrictions. Out-of-staters who aren’t passing through have to quarantine for 14 days, wherever they are coming from.

The state will also be releasing at least 186 prisoners convicted of not-so-serious crimes on commuted sentences. However, the prisoners must identify a residence where they can stay and where they will be required to quarantine for a period of 14 days, according to Michael Brown, the secretary of the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet.


Six states have not issued stay-at-home orders, including Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and South Carolina.

“The contrast is the starkest in five states — Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — where there are no such orders in place, either in major cities or statewide. Another four had partial restrictions issued locally in certain cities or counties,” the New York Times reports.

“The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said, explaining that both her state’s and the U.S. constitutions “prevent us from taking draconian measures much like the Chinese government has done.”

President Donald Trump has refused calls for taking action on a federal level, leaving it up to state leaders to decide what is best for their constituents. If he did order a nationwide lockdown, he would be violating the Constitution. As President Trump has said, he doesn’t do it because he cares about the Constitution.

“I can’t lock the state down,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds told the Times. “People also have to be responsible for themselves.”

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum has strongly urged people to stay at home, but, like the others, believes that an order would violate the liberty of his constituents.

“It’s important that we exercise individual responsibility,” Gov. Burgum said at a news conference. “By following these guidelines, we’re literally saving lives.”

Where do you fall in this controversy?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments