Legal brief (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) ) - Assignment Example

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ U.S. Supreme Court No. 09-1272 Argued January 12, Decided May 16, Facts of the Case: Police officers in Kentucky were following a suspected drug peddler to an apartment when they smelled marijuana outside one apartment door. The police informed the occupants of their and knocked door and shortly after, they heard noises from the apartment and believed that the noises were consistent with an attempt to destroy evidence. The officers declared their intent to go into the apartment, kicked the door and found the respondent among others and also found drugs and other additional evidence during the search.

The circuit court denied the accused’s indication to suppress the evidence; reason being that exigent circumstances (the need to prevent the elimination of evidence) vindicated the warrantless entrance. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the decision by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.Procedural History of the case: the King moved to court and filed an appeal to reverse the decision of the Circuit court which was affirmed by the Kentucky court of Appeals, which had come to a finding that the officers had a reasonable basis to investigate the marijuana odor and that they properly carried out the investigation by firstly knocking on the door of the apartment and anticipating a response .

The court also held that the exigent circumstances vindicated the warrantless entry since there was no response from the apartment when the officers knocked and one officer heard movement in the apartment which he thought were people trying to destroy evidence. The respondent was sentenced for 11 years imprisonment. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the decision by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.

The Issue of the case: The issue identified in the case was, whether the exigent circumstances rule was applicable when the police forced their entry without a warranty. Holding and reasoning of the case: The court held the opinion that the police should have foreseen that their action would have impelled the occupants to purge the evidence. The court determined that the exigent circumstances rule did not apply in this case. The exigent circumstances rule usually applies in circumstances when police fail to create the exigency by engaging themselves in the conduct violating the Fourth Amendment.

This amendment (fourth amendment) brings about requirements: all searches and seizure ought to be sensible and the scope of the search should be well set out and a warrant may not be issued unless a justifiable cause is established. The presumption that searches and seizures inside one’s residence without a warrant is unreasonable may; however, be overturned in the situation when the exigencies of the situation compel the needs of law enforcement that a search without a warrant is deemed reasonable.

Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court decided that the exigent circumstances rule was not applicable when the police officers forced their entry into the apartment. The court established that this rule is applicable only when officers do not generate the exigency by partaking or threatening to partake in a behavior that infringes the Fourth Amendment. Comments on the case: Many a times the police have forced their way into people’s apartments. However, a warrantless seizure and search which is based on exigent circumstances was justifiable when the police did not lead to the exigency by engaging in conduct violating the fourth amendment.

It is in emergency situations when police may enter one’s residence without a warrant or when they believe that the evidence is being destroyed. The police however should not cause the exigency so as to perform a warrantless search of private property.[1] Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011)