Kentucky vs king. KENTUCKY v. KING 2022-10-16
Kentucky vs king
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 vs. King: Is a Warrantless Entry Justified...
Respondent filed a motion to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search, but the Circuit Court denied the motion. Similarly, officers may seek consent-based encounters if they are lawfully present in the place where the consensual encounter occurs. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. Supreme Court Case 344 Words 2 Pages These court cases are a big impact to African American rights and their lives. It is the duty of law enforcement officers to conduct legal searches and seizures. Police officers may have a very good reason to announce their presence loudly and to knock on the door with some force.
KENTUCKY v. KING
Defending the legality of the search, the Government attempted to justify the warrantless search of the room as a valid search incident to a lawful arrest. See Brigham City, 547 U. The couple got married in Washington, D. He is the author of Legal Issues in Homeland Security, Looseleaf Law Publications. Delgado , 466 U.
Kentucky v. King :: 563 U.S. 452 (2011) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Persons in possession of valuable drugs are unlikely to destroy them unless they fear discovery by the police. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Suppose that the officers in the present case did not smell marijuana smoke and thus knew only that there was a 50% chance that the fleeing suspect had entered the apartment on the left rather than the apartment on the right. Officers then announced their intent to enter the apartment and then kicked in the door. Our review of the facts and the record, as they exist before us and as they existed before the trial court, reveals no such grave deprivation excepting the -5- present case from the general rule against summary dismissal of an indictment prior to trial.
Kentucky v. King
He relies on a passing statement made by the trial court in its opinion denying respondent's motion to suppress. Respondent then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. In addition, Officer Wheetley spotted an open beer can inside the vehicle. King had to appeal the decision of the lower court which was overturned by the Kentucky Supreme Court, holding that the entry and search without a warrant was illegal. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. For example, whenever law enforcement officers knock on the door of premises occupied by a person who may be involved in the drug trade, there is some possibility that the occupants may possess drugs and may seek to destroy them.
Supreme Court Decides Kentucky v. King
Police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. Thus, Johnson is simply not a case about exigent circumstances. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶ 32, 327 Wis. Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing them down a toilet or rinsing them down a drain. New York , Although the text of the Brigham City v. Supreme Court Case: Brown V.
KENTUCKY v. KING
. Third, law enforcement officers may wish to obtain more evidence before submitting what might otherwise be considered a marginal warrant application. Before this ruling, certain theaters would play certain movies. Court for Eastern Dist. Rengifo, This approach is fundamentally inconsistent with our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex.
📚 Kentucky vs King Case: The Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases Free Essay, Research Paper Example
Chambers , 395 F. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. First, all searches and seizures must be reasonable. 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. IV We now apply our interpretation of the police-created exigency doctrine to the facts of this case.
Kentucky V. King: Supreme Court Case
Indeed, we have never held, outside limited contexts such as an "inventory search or administrative inspection. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. See United States v. 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 Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. United States, Johnson, officers noticed the smell of burning opium emanating from a hotel room.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY VS. KING (HOLLIS DESHAUN) :: 2014 :: Kentucky Court of Appeals Decisions :: Kentucky Case Law :: Kentucky Law :: US Law :: Justia
Thus, a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. The court considered whether there was presence of exigency which would compel the police to break into the apartment. Without attempting to provide a comprehensive list of these reasons, we note a few. To permit the judiciary, summarily and prior to trial, to screen out cases it deems frivolous would place the judiciary squarely in the stead of the executive and bestow the members of the judiciary with boundless power our Constitution dictates they ought not have. 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.