CASE Brief Kentucky v. King (2011 ) PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief for Kentucky v. King (2011). This is a critical case which appears on the exam. ...

Description

CASE BRIEF #3 Kentucky v. King (2011) 1. Heading: Kentucky v. King Supreme Court of the United States Decided May 16, 2011 2. Statement of Facts Police entered a building, pursuing a drug dealer who sold cocaine to an undercover informant. They lost sight of the suspect and accidently thought he went into an apartment smelling of marijuana. The police knocked the door and identified themselves, they heard movements and this led them to believe that the people in the apartment were destroying evidence. They next forcibly entered to stop evidence from being destroyed. King and some other individuals were found smoking marijuana in the apartment. In addition, the police found money, drugs and paraphernalia. 3. Procedural History King entered a conditional guilty plea. This reserves his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained from what he attempted to argue was an illegal search. Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction based on the circumstances supporting the warrantless search were not of the officer’s making or doing and the police did not evade the warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court order. It found that the entry was improper 4. Issues: Is the exclusionary rule, which prohibits illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions? -When does lawful police action impermissibly create exigent circumstances? -In emergency circumstances, police can enter and search without a warrant. -Police acted lawfully as they “knock and announce” 5. Judgement The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court order. 6. Holding The 8-1 opinion held that warrantless searches can be conducted if there are police-created exigent circumstances that do not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is so long as police did not threaten or intentionally violate the Fourth Amendment. 7. Rule of Law: Exigent circumstances, waive the need of a police officer to have a warrant before entering and searching. “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.” 8. Reasoning The police did not deliberately engage in misconduct. It was not intentional for the police to evade the warrant requirement. The police had reason to believe that the suspect was in the apartment and the movements indicated a destruction of evidence.

9. Additional Comments/ Personal Impressions This case almost undermines the Fourth Amendment. Police can “create” exigent circumstances to warrant them entering someone’s home. The courts give police deference in their violations of the Fourth Amendment, especially for “drug busts”. For this reason I would agree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent for this case....