Kentucky v. King case brief summary
563 US 452 (2011)
563 US 452 (2011)
RULING:
It is well established that “exigent circumstances” including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.
FACTS:
•The police staged a drug deal and watched the dealer run into his apartment so they ran after him. •They did not know if he went into the app on the left or right.
ISSUE:
Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions?
King’s argument: by knocking on the door, the police created the exigent circumstances.
In THIS CASE, the officers had to make split-second decisions, making this an unreasonable test.
It is stupid to say their knocking promotes the destruction of evidence. They knock for a lot of reasons
They are doing what any member of the public can do, knock on doors.
The resident is not required to open the door.
If there are exigent circumstances, they can enter.
It is well established that “exigent circumstances” including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.
FACTS:
•The police staged a drug deal and watched the dealer run into his apartment so they ran after him. •They did not know if he went into the app on the left or right.
•They went to the one they could smell weed coming from.
•They banged on the door and yelled police and heard a fluster of activity in the app.
•They believed they were destroying evidence and smelled weed
•They announced they were going to make entry and kicked the door down.
•They announced they were going to make entry and kicked the door down.
•They saw weed and coke in plain view.
•The drug dealer was in the apartment on the right.
•The drug dealer was in the apartment on the right.
Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions?
King’s argument: by knocking on the door, the police created the exigent circumstances.
ANALYSIS:
•Police can enter without a warrant when there is emergency aid for an injured person(s) or to protect an occupant.
•When in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
•To prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.
Lower courts have created “police created exigency” doctrine that says police cannot use the destruction of evidence to create reasonableness
ANALYSIS:
Reasonably foreseeable test: if it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics used would create exigent circumstances.
•Police can enter without a warrant when there is emergency aid for an injured person(s) or to protect an occupant.
•When in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
•To prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.
Lower courts have created “police created exigency” doctrine that says police cannot use the destruction of evidence to create reasonableness
ANALYSIS:
Reasonably foreseeable test: if it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics used would create exigent circumstances.
In THIS CASE, the officers had to make split-second decisions, making this an unreasonable test.
It is stupid to say their knocking promotes the destruction of evidence. They knock for a lot of reasons
They are doing what any member of the public can do, knock on doors.
The resident is not required to open the door.
If there are exigent circumstances, they can enter.
HOLDING:
The search was reasonable
The search was reasonable
"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."
***
Follow us on Instagram: instagram.com/law_school_case_briefs
***
Follow us on Instagram: instagram.com/law_school_case_briefs
No comments:
Post a Comment