Kentucky v. King

563 U.S. 452, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011)

 

RULE:

It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. This presumption may be overcome in some circumstances. Accordingly, the warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions. One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

FACTS:

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment and the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent King's motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances--the need to prevent destruction of evidence--justified the warrantless entry. King entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply in the case at hand because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence.

ISSUE:

Did the Supreme Court of Kentucky err in its judgment holding that the search was invalid because exigent circumstances rule did not apply in this case?

ANSWER:

Yes

CONCLUSION:

The United States Supreme Court rejected Kentucky Supreme Court’s interpretation of the exigent circumstances rule. The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.