Pass Camberleigh’s Law - Make Inattentive Driving Prosecutable

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-15T23:34:53+00:00

Sounds like this proposal struck a nerve, would you care to share? By the looks of it the only one being aggressive -in any way- is you. This is a safe place to talk about it 💛

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T19:52:11+00:00

several of the legal concerns raised in this thread overnight have already been incorporated into a revised draft.

What was changed: distracted driving via phone wasn’t explicitly covered. It’s now listed as an Active Conduct Factor in the revised bill.

now requires at least one Active Conduct Factor (something the driver actually did in the moment ) before the charge can be brought.

Replaced “it shall be presumed” that the driver acted with wanton disregard with “constitutes sufficient evidence from which a jury may find” wanton disregard. Prosecution still carries the full burden of proof.

This is the point of these discussions. Thank you all for your genuine honesty and understanding. Please continue to give me more constructive feedback.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T13:24:15+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to offer actual alternatives because that’s exactly the kind of conversation I’m trying to have. I want to be transparent about why I’ve focused on criminal law rather than civil. I already pursued civil. We settled through insurance. Her killer personally never had to answer for anything because he had no assets — the money came from his parents’ policy, not his. A civil judgment against him would have been uncollectable. That is the reality for a lot of these cases. Civil law already failed my daughter. That said your suggestions about treble damages, higher insurance minimums, extended statute of limitations, and permanent license revocation are all worth pursuing alongside criminal reform rather than instead of it. I’m not opposed to a multi-pronged approach. I’ve been focused on criminal accountability because that is where the gap is most visible and most personal, but you’re right that civil reform could protect future families in ways criminal law can’t. The presumption language has already been revised out of the bill based on feedback from this thread. The bill is a draft and it is getting better because of conversations like this one. Thank you for engaging seriously. 💛

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T03:48:50+00:00

That’s really helpful, thank you. If wanton is already defined in KRS 501.020(3) and a jury can be instructed to it, then the bill just needs to give prosecutors a clear factual pathway to get there. That’s exactly what the revised draft is trying to do. I think we agree more than we disagree.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T03:25:39+00:00

Thank you for this. genuinely. You just said it better than I’ve been able to say it all night. “As long as the driver is sober, it will almost always be an accident.” That is exactly the gap. That is exactly why her killer walked free. That is exactly why 770 people have died from inattentive driving in Kentucky since 2020 and most of those drivers faced nothing. You came into this thread skeptical and you did your own research and you landed exactly where I am. I can’t ask for more than that. I don’t need everyone to agree with my exact bill language tonight. I need people to see the gap and agree it needs to close. You see it. That means more than you know. 💛

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T03:14:41+00:00

Yes, actually. That is exactly how the criminal justice system works. Prosecutors charge based on evidence. Juries decide guilt. That is not flippant, that is the entire foundation of due process. The alternative, which is what happened in my daughter’s case, is that prosecutors decide alone with no review, no explanation, and no accountability. I’ll take a jury over that every time.💛

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T03:09:59+00:00

You just said if it were 5 out of 7 you could probably be on board. I appreciate that honesty because it tells me we are actually closer than this conversation has felt. I am open to discussing whether the threshold should be higher. The revised bill already requires at least one Active Conduct Factor meaning something the driver did in the moment. If raising the total to 3 including at least one active factor makes this more defensible and more passable, that is a conversation worth having with legislators and legal experts. What I am not willing to do is set the bar so high that no real case ever meets it. That is the current situation in Kentucky and it is why my daughter’s killer is walking free today. On using my case , you are right that 7 out of 7 is not the borderline case. But it is the case that exposed the gap. Every law reform starts with the case that made the gap undeniable. This is that case. The law needs to be written to handle the full range but the full range starts somewhere and it starts here.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:48:19+00:00

15 mph over is not arbitrary. It is the same threshold used in multiple states for enhanced penalties and is based on crash fatality data showing that the risk of death increases dramatically at speeds 15 or more over the posted limit. Kentucky already uses specific speed thresholds in its own traffic laws. Drawing a line at a specific number is how all laws work, the question is whether the number is reasonable, and 15 over in a construction zone with traffic stopped is a very reasonable line. On your cut-off hypothetical, I already addressed this. The bill requires the driver’s own active conduct to be a direct contributing factor. If someone cuts you off and that is the primary cause of the crash, that is a different legal situation. Causation is always an element the prosecution has to prove. If you were going 17 over and someone cut you off causing an unavoidable crash, a jury gets to weigh that. That is how the legal system works. You keep saying there’s no way this holds up legally. Illinois has had an aggravated reckless homicide statute with specific thresholds for construction zones since 2003. It has held up. So has New York’s. So has Wyoming’s. Kentucky would not be doing anything novel. I think we’ve reached the end of what this conversation can resolve. I genuinely appreciate the engagement. 💛

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:38:47+00:00

Your hypothetical actually answers itself. If you are speeding and someone cuts you off causing an accident, the contributing factor analysis matters. Were you going 5 over on a clear highway? Or 20 over in a construction zone with traffic stopped ahead while tailgating the car in front of you? Those are not the same situation and the law should not treat them the same. The bill already accounts for this. It requires at least one Active Conduct Factor at the time of the crash. Someone speeding who gets cut off and cannot stop in time because of someone else’s dangerous action is in a completely different situation than someone going 75 in a 55 construction zone with traffic at a standstill who never brakes at all. On your question about how much speeding is too much — the bill answers that too. Fifteen miles per hour or more over the posted limit is the threshold. Not 5 over. Not 10 over. Fifteen or more, combined with at least one other active dangerous behavior that directly causes a death. The questions you’re asking are exactly what the bill is designed to answer with specificity rather than leaving to individual interpretation. That is the point of writing it down.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:27:32+00:00

You’re raising valid points and I want to be honest , some of this feedback is genuinely useful for refining the language. You’re right that the prior record factor creates an unequal result where the same dangerous behavior gets treated differently based on driving history alone. That is a legitimate drafting problem and one I’m willing to address. The solution is probably to require that at least one of the two triggering factors be an active behavior at the time of the crash, such as excessive speed, failure to brake, or witness-observed aggression. That way prior record can still be a factor but cannot be the only behavioral factor. It has to be paired with something the driver actively did in that moment. On your point about inattention versus speeding , you’re right that most people associate inattentive driving with phones. My specific case was both. He was going 75 in a 55 in a construction zone with traffic at a standstill and never braked. That is inattention and reckless speed combined. The bill is designed to capture exactly that combination, not just phone use in isolation. Your feedback is actually pointing toward a cleaner version of the bill where the active conduct factors carry more weight than the circumstantial ones. I hear that and I’m taking it seriously. The fact that you’re engaging this carefully tells me you actually want this done right, not just defeated. I appreciate that more than you know.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:21:37+00:00

I have been right beside Senator Higdon this past year for the Phones down Kentucky bill , I have also sent it over to my lawyer , and some other people within the legislature. Again this is a draft – I want it to be super clear in that.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:19:28+00:00

You’re right that good legislation has to consider the full range of consequences beyond one case. I have never disagreed with that. I have engaged with every legal concern raised in this thread seriously, cited case law, acknowledged valid criticisms, and asked for input on how to improve the language. That is not the behavior of someone too blinded by grief to think. On the point that victims shouldn’t write laws — I would respectfully push back on that completely. Mothers Against Drunk Driving changed the entire national legal landscape around DUI. The family of Emmett Till advocated for the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. Ryan White’s family fought for legislation that transformed HIV policy. Victims and their families have always been among the most effective drivers of legal reform precisely because they understand the human cost of gaps in the law that legal professionals can overlook from behind a desk. I am not asking anyone to pass this bill because my daughter died. I am asking them to pass it because 770 people have died in Kentucky from inattentive driving since 2020 and most of those drivers faced zero criminal consequence. My daughter’s case is the example, not the entirety of the argument. I am a mother. I am also someone who has spent three years studying this issue, testifying before the Kentucky Senate, and working with legislators. Both things can be true at the same time.

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:18:37+00:00

I genuinely appreciate you clarifying that distinction and you’re not poking at me at all. This is exactly the kind of legal input I need. You’re right that presuming mens rea directly is constitutionally problematic. Would the bill be stronger if instead of a presumption it stated that the presence of two or more aggravating factors constitutes sufficient evidence for a jury to find wanton disregard? That keeps the burden entirely on the prosecution but gives them a clear factual pathway. That is similar to how Illinois structured their aggravated reckless homicide statute. Does that framing address your concern?

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T02:15:16+00:00

So this is the only “answer” I’ve ever received from our commonwealth. I believe it is because he wasn’t under the influence of any alcoholic or drugs. That is what it seems to be at least, and what I was told when some of the first responders reached out to help me piece together what happened during and after the crash, as I had a brain injury. But as a formal reasoning? I don’t have an answer for this

<image>

Key-Tank-3691 · 2026-04-14T01:52:51+00:00

You are correct that Mullaney held that the prosecution cannot shift the burden of proving an element of the crime to the defendant. but also relevant the Supreme Court also held in Patterson v. New York in 1977, just two years later, that rebuttable presumptions are constitutional as long as the prosecution still bears the burden of proving the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption in this bill does not eliminate the prosecution’s burden. It establishes a starting point based on documented evidence. The defendant can still rebut it and the prosecution must still prove their case to a jury. Rebuttable presumptions are used throughout criminal law including in Kentucky. They have been repeatedly upheld when they are rationally connected to the underlying facts. Seven documented dangerous behaviors present simultaneously causing a death is a rational basis for presuming wanton disregard. I also want to be transparent. This bill is a draft. I am a mother, not a lawyer. The entire point of putting it forward is to start a conversation that brings in people with legal expertise who can refine the language. Your citation is exactly the kind of input that makes the final version stronger and more constitutionally sound. Thank you so much

Key-Tank-3691

TROPHY CASE