Kentucky v king. kentucky v king 2019-02-11

kentucky v king

The police ordinarily need a warrant to enter the home. Response due May 21, 2010 May 17 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Hollis Deshaun King to respond filed. The question is, what test can achieve both goals at once? Instead of recognizing that there might not be a perfect solution and attempting to strike a balance between not giving police the go-ahead to ignore the warrant requirement, on one hand, and protecting their ability to rely on genuine exigencies, on the other, the Court chose to follow a different analysis entirely—one completely divorced from the actual problem. Circuits all consider the intentions of the officer in their police-created exigency calculus. The Defendant passed the motorcycle in Paxton, Illinois as follows: a. May 21 2010 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al.

KENTUCKY v. KING

And in most cases, it would be nearly impossible for a court to determine whether that threshold had been passed. Words: 332 - Pages: 2. The trial court's basic function is to resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. In some situations, police would still be prevented from conducting a knock-and-talk and relying on the subsequent exigent circumstances to justify their warrantless search. Defendant King moved in court to suppress the evidence and though he eventually pled to charges, he preserved his suppression motion as it wound its way through the Kentucky courts. When the data is non-content data, i.

Kentucky v. King: The One Where the Supreme Court Dishonors the Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases

Their logical conclusion was that the door had recently been opened so they knocked an announced their presence. Within our Constitutional framework, that threshold across which leads to our homes is sacred ground which no judge is willing to defile. A jury is a group of citizens who listen to the facts and make decisions about the case. What court decided the case in the assignment? Put another way, an officer cannot do something if a reasonable officer could foresee it resulting in a suspect responding with illegal behavior, such as destroying evidence. Such requirements are unsound and are thus rejected. Since there were no bystanders or other evidence except the police officers and the tenants involved it was very difficult to come out with a verdict. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

PoliceOne Analysis: Kentucky v. King

In these circumstances, the officers now have the Court-sanctioned ability to break into the premises without a warrant. Further explanation on how the King ruling may apply to other cases involving computers or other devices that contain electronic evidence is provided. In the first appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the decision of the Federal District Court was reversed due to issues not applicable here. The trick is deciding how the preset Court may go in this case. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. Of course the police officers stated that there were exigent circumstances occurring before they enter the apartment and the tenants states that there were no exigent circumstances until they entered the apartment. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

Kentucky v. King case brief Essay

Defendant must flash lights to indicate he wishes to pass. If the police decide to light the home on fire, however, they can manufacture an exigency: The fire will mean that they have an emergency justifying a warrantless entry, both to save the person inside and to seize the drugs so they are not burned up by the fire and the evidence is lost. Police officers set up a drug deal under their supervision. Issue: A warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Officers then heard moving noises of people and assumed the things were being moved as well and forced their entry to the apartment and arrested the respondent King as a result of the search cond ucted. The Kentucky Supreme Court applied the police-created exigency doctrine in this case, overturning respondent's conviction.

Search

On what basis you can name more than one can a Case go to Federal Court? Therefore, rather than using a subjective analysis, this test joins two key elements that together provide an accurate assessment of whether an officer acted intentionally to evade the warrant requirement. This line of analysis is similar to the Mann test, although it requires only a consideration of foreseeability, without weighing other factors. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. Distributed Oct 26 2010 Letter and attachment received from counsel for the respondent Distributed. Distributed Dec 13 2010 Record received from Circuit Court of Fayette County, Kentucky. What they failed to realize is that even if you are in your home with the door locked if you create a situation in which arises police officers attention then escalates to a level of exigency they can enter your home if you do not open the door. The Court chose the test it thought best achieved these goals: the lawful manner test, refined to address criticisms that this test did not properly delineate what lawful conduct meant.

Kentucky v. King case brief Essay Example

As shown in the film, Henry V was willing to do whatever was necessary to disassociate himself with his adolescent past. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on. Uniformed officers left their vehicles by a nearby parking lot and ran to the breezeway and missed the informative piece radioed by Gibbons that the suspect has entered into the apartment to the right. They felt like their privacy was violated because even though they were conducting illegal activities, they were doing so behind closed doors and in the privacy of their home. As a result of the knock, they hear a male voice begin to yell about the police being called and how he is now going to kill the female occupant within.

kentucky v king

Destroying property is generally a seizure of that property, Brown v. To see why this exception exists, imagine the police are outside a home of a person whom they suspect has drugs inside. Capra, American Criminal Procedure 376 8th ed. What is the difference between a dissenting and a concurring opinion? Abramoske, supra note 79, at 579. State courts are free to grant more protection to their citizens by interpreting their state constitutions differently.