AN ACT relating to hospital police departments.
HB 248 would authorize licensed hospitals in Kentucky, with specified exceptions for public hospitals and hospitals tied to public postsecondary institutions or other governmental entities, to establish their own police departments. These hospital police officers would be sworn peace officers with general police powers on hospital property and, in some cases, beyond it for investigations tied to offenses on hospital-controlled property. The bill also allows hospitals to set uniforms, designate emergency vehicles, regulate traffic and parking on hospital property, and create rules for the appointment, promotion, compensation, and discipline of hospital police personnel.
The measure also sets qualifications and operational rules for hospital police officers, including state certification requirements, authority to use emergency vehicles with blue lights and sirens, radio system authority, and reporting obligations to state criminal justice agencies. It creates penalties for impersonating a hospital police officer and establishes a detailed internal complaint and disciplinary process with notice, hearing, counsel, evidence, and reinstatement/back-pay protections for officers under certain circumstances. The bill expressly preserves the authority of local police, sheriffs, Kentucky State Police, constables, and other peace officers, making clear that hospital police powers are supplemental rather than a replacement for existing law enforcement authority.
HB 248 would add a new set of provisions to KRS Chapter 216B governing hospital police departments and hospital security authority. It would expand the legal powers of qualifying private hospitals by granting them statutory police authority, while also imposing certification, reporting, and due-process requirements for officers and disciplinary proceedings. The bill would affect hospitals, hospital employees, patients, visitors, local law enforcement agencies, and officers who interact with hospital property and investigations.
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with the House overriding a veto by an 84-4 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate organized opposition or amendment concerns in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably as a public safety and hospital operations measure.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of police powers granted to private hospitals, the reach of those powers beyond hospital property for related investigations, and the procedural protections afforded to hospital police officers in misconduct cases. Another possible issue is the bill’s carve-out excluding publicly owned or publicly operated hospitals, which creates a distinction between private and governmental hospital systems. The bill also carefully preserves existing law enforcement authority, suggesting concern about overlap or conflict with local police, sheriffs, and state police.