Kentucky vs king. PoliceOne Analysis: Kentucky v. King 2022-10-30
Kentucky vs king Rating:
9,9/10
393
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
And even if an occupant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time. Wisconsin, That heavy burden has not been carried here. King: The One Where the Supreme Court Dishonors the Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases. However, this is the Commonwealth s burden at trial and not before. New York, Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, this Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. First, all searches and seizures must be reasonable. A forceful knock may be necessary to alert the occupants that someone is at the door, and unless officers identify themselves loudly enough, occupants may not know who is at their doorstep.
At the end of the breezeway, the officers saw two apartments, one on the left and one on the right, and they did not know which apartment the suspect had entered. II As above noted, to justify the police activity in this case, Kentucky invoked the once-guarded exception for emergencies "in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant. Under those circumstances, would it have been reasonably foreseeable that the occupants of the apartment on the left would seek to destroy evidence upon learning that the police were at the door? The absence of an indictment does not change matters. Second, even absent bad faith, the court concluded, police may not rely on exigent circumstances if "it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics employed by the police would create the exigent circumstances. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association OSSAA. The three occupants of the searched apartment challenged the constitutionality of the search. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others.
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. The 5 D For these reasons, we conclude that the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the 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. Drayton, If respondent's test were adopted, it would be extremely difficult for police officers to know how loudly they may announce their presence or how forcefully they may knock on a door without running afoul of the police-created exigency rule. Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity. Keeling at 253, n. The Paramount Decision: The Supreme Court Case 400 Words 2 Pages The Paramount decision happened in 1948.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY VS. KING (HOLLIS DESHAUN) :: 2014 :: Kentucky Court of Appeals Decisions :: Kentucky Case Law :: Kentucky Law :: US Law :: Justia
They would only play the movies that were made by the same company. Court for Eastern Dist. The warrants have to be granted by a judge. The undercover officer signaled the deal had been consummated and provided a description of the suspect who was moving down a breezeway and heading back toward his apartment building. However, King s reliance on them, and his assertion of the principle of finality as a means of barring future prosecution of the indictment against him, is misplaced.
📚 Kentucky vs King Case: The Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases Free Essay, Research Paper Example
We will not do so. Ramirez, Brigham City, supra, at 403, 126 S. We, too, assume for purposes of argument that an exigency existed. Contrary to this reasoning, however, we have rejected the notion that police may seize evidence without a warrant only when they come across the evidence by happenstance. This approach fails to provide clear guidance for law enforcement officers and authorizes courts to make judgments on matters that are the province of those who are responsible for federal and state law enforcement agencies.
In a subsequent search, they also discovered crack cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Respondent then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The indictment belongs to the grand jury, an institution which maintains functional independence from the Judicial Branch ¦. A "stop and frisk" is no less invasive than a warranted search, the court found that there interrogation was warranted and that the police officer had a right for his own protection to pat them down.
Kentucky v. King :: 563 U.S. 452 (2011) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
United States, per se unreasonable. KING certiorari to the supreme court of kentucky No. . On remand, King asked the trial court to dismiss with prejudice the indictment against him in light of the suppressed evidence. If their action is conducted in a lawful manner then they cannot be said to have improperly created their own exigent circumstance. This later statement is consistent with the testimony at the suppression hearing and with the findings of the state appellate courts. Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
Kentucky vs. King: Is a Warrantless Entry Justified...
This Court has identified several exigencies that may justify a warrantless search of a home. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. At the time, Virginia law included the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which banned an interracial couple from marrying. They then knocked on the door and demanded entry. 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.
At the end of the breezeway, the officers saw two apartments, one on the left and one on the right, and they did not know which apartment the suspect had entered. Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. They proceeded to kick down the door and enter. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. The attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence which he claimed was illegally obtained. It is obvious that King was a criminal since he was in possession of illegal drugs and money which meant that he was a trafficker also. The police did not impermissibly create the exigency, the court explained, because they did not deliberately evade the warrant requirement.
For example, officers may seize evidence in plain view if they have not violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the spot from which the observation of the evidence is made, see Horton v. 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. See United States v. King before the U. King does not allege that perpetuation of his prosecution would violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial. If there is contradictory evidence that has not been brought to our attention, the state court may elect to address that matter on remand. First, all searches and seizures must be reasonable.
