Kentucky vs king. Supreme Court Decides Kentucky v. King 2022-12-21
Kentucky vs king Rating:
5,1/10
673
reviews
The case of Kentucky v. King is a significant legal case that dealt with the issue of police officers entering a private residence without a warrant. The case arose in 2010 when police officers in Lexington, Kentucky entered an apartment complex in search of a suspect who they believed was in possession of drugs. While searching the complex, the officers entered an apartment that they believed the suspect was in, but it turned out to be the wrong apartment. The occupants of the apartment, including Hollis King, were not involved in the drug investigation and were not the suspect the police were looking for.
The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was argued that the police officers had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the police, stating that the officers were justified in entering the apartment without a warrant because they had a reasonable belief that the suspect was in the apartment and that evidence of the drug crime was about to be destroyed.
The decision in Kentucky v. King has had significant implications for the powers of police officers to enter private residences without a warrant. Prior to this case, it was generally understood that police officers needed to obtain a warrant before entering a private residence. However, the Supreme Court's decision in this case established the "exigent circumstances" exception, which allows police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be destroyed or that someone's life is in danger.
While the decision in Kentucky v. King has been controversial and has been criticized by some for potentially giving police officers too much power, it has also been praised for providing law enforcement with the tools they need to effectively and efficiently investigate crimes. Ultimately, the case highlights the delicate balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.
KENTUCKY v. KING
Given that this announcement was made after the exigency arose, it could not have created the exigency. Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity. West Virginia 1905 Words 8 Pages The history of America is as much the history of freedom and triumph as it is the history of the segregation and oppression of African Americans. However the trial court denied his argument and stated the incident was legitimate to arrest, Riley was convicted. Or suppose that the officers knew only that the suspect had disappeared into one of the apartments on a floor with 3, 5, 10, or even 20 units? Under the "emergency aid" exception, for example, "officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. The warrants have to be granted by a judge.
Or so were their intended thoughts when creating the constitution and the branches. Similarly, officers may seek consent-based encounters if they are lawfully present in the place where the consensual encounter occurs. Because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, we hold that the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment. Indeed, we have never held, outside limited contexts such as an "inventory search or administrative inspection. This conduct was entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and we are aware of no other evidence that might show that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so for example, by announcing that they would break down the door if the occupants did not open the door voluntarily. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. Respondent then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
Kentucky v. King :: 563 U.S. 452 (2011) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Because the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and because its reasons are apparent from the record, King argues that we must affirm the trial court s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Without attempting to provide a comprehensive list of these reasons, we note a few. Just as they entered the breezeway, they heard a door shut and detected a very strong odor of burnt marijuana. Socey, United States v. Just as they entered the breezeway, they heard a door shut and detected a very strong odor of burnt marijuana. The Commonwealth is not required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid dismissal of an indictment with or without prejudice.
This argument is also unpersuasive. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. King s widesweeping claims to the contrary are misguided. Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court. III A Despite the welter of tests devised by the lower courts, the answer to the question presented in this case follows directly and clearly from the principle that permits warrantless searches in the first place.
From this express -4- separation of powers a natural and implicit limitation of powers also emerges. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. Time will not change that fact. United States, Standard or good investigative tactics. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: The exigent circumstances rule still applies even if the police conduct foreseeably prompted a defendant to destroy evidence. Police officers may have a very good reason to announce their presence loudly and to knock on the door with some force.
Kentucky vs. King: Is a Warrantless Entry Justified...
But see ante, at 1861-1862, n. Hence, we reverse and we remand, whereupon, if the trial court deems it appropriate, the indictment may be dismissed without prejudice. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. Circumstances qualify as "exigent" when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury, or danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed, or that a suspect will escape. Judgment: The decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky is reversed and remanded. Exceptions to the warrant requirement, this Court has explained, must be "few in number and carefully delineated," if the main rule is to remain hardy.
📚 Kentucky vs King Case: The Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases Free Essay, Research Paper Example
Kentucky s Constitution specifically endorses and clearly articulates a separation of powers among our government s three branches. These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentucky Jamesa J. Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry, the court held, because "there was no response at all to the knocking," and because "Officer Cobb heard movement in the apartment which he reasonably concluded were persons in the act of destroying evidence, particularly narcotics because of the smell. They attempted to appeal the conviction based on the defense of self-defense. Could the police enter the room without a warrant? For example, we have held that law enforcement officers may seize evidence in plain view, provided that they have not violated the Horton v.
Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. A search warrant is only granted with in an event where there is a probable cause. Chambers, United States v. They entered the apartment and found three individuals, as well as marijuana, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine in plain view. Persons in possession of valuable drugs are unlikely to destroy them unless they fear discovery by the police. Instead, the Fourth Amendment requires only that the steps preceding the seizure be lawful.
See Brigham City, 547 U. This later statement is consistent with the testimony at the suppression hearing and with the findings of the state appellate courts. If there is contradictory evidence that has not been brought to our attention, the state court may elect to address that matter on remand. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place before his arrest based on the data stored in Riley's phone. The occupants, according to the Court, could have exercised their constitutional rights and refused to admit the officers, but instead they began unlawfully destroying evidence. Within our Constitutional framework, that threshold across which leads to our homes is sacred ground which no judge is willing to defile.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY VS. KING (HOLLIS DESHAUN) :: 2014 :: Kentucky Court of Appeals Decisions :: Kentucky Case Law :: Kentucky Law :: US Law :: Justia
Although the court found no evidence of bad faith, it held that exigent circumstances could not justify the search because it was reasonably foreseeable that the occupants would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence. The ruling of this case decided if movies studios would also own movie theaters and hold exclusive rights to their theaters. Riley went to try to suppress all evidence the officer had got from searching his phone on the grounds that the search had violated his fourth amendment rights. No person or collection of persons, being of one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. Some courts, in applying the police-created exigency doctrine, fault law enforcement officers if, after acquiring evidence that is sufficient to establish probable cause to search particular premises, the officers do not seek a warrant but instead knock on the door and seek either to speak with an occupant or to obtain consent to search. Police eventually entered the apartment on the right. Louisiana, per curiam reversing state-court judgment that exigent circumstances were not required for warrantless home entry and remanding for state court to determine whether exigent circumstances were present.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22847633/usa_today_14143334.jpg)
