Inderraj Singh

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___(2011)

Facts: Police officers set up a drug deal under their supervision. An undercover officer Gibbons watched the event and informed the uniformed officers to follow the suspect who was headed toward breezeway of an apartment building. 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. Police officers smelled very strong odor of marijuana from the apartment on the left and knocked the door loudly and announced their presence. 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 conducted. Procedural History: The Circuit Court denied respondents motion to suppress the evidence for a warrantless search based on the exigent circumstances. Respondent then filed a guilty plea and the Kentucky Court of appeals affirmed (with the Circuit Court) and the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted the certiorari. Issue: Does the exigent circumstances rule used to search Kings premises have violated the Fourth Amendment? Rule: The Fourth Amendment reads, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. Ruling: In 8-1 decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Court Reversed and Remanded the decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, holding that exigent circumstances waive the need to obtain a warrant before entering the premises. Analysis: The issue presented before the Court is whether or not the exigent circumstances rule applied in this case. The Court looked to Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), in which the Court held that the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence makes the warrantless search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the officers to conduct a search was reasonable because they suspected the disappearance of the evidence. The Court recognized the two requirements of Fourth Amendment. First, all searches and seizures should be reasonable and second, warrant is only to be issued if the probable cause is properly established. Under exigent circumstances officers may enter the house to assist in an emergency and to protect a tenant from imminent injury and they may also

Inderraj Singh

enter if it is suspected that the suspect is set to flee the area. It is established that an exigency existed in this situation and officers followed the proper steps by knocking and announcing their presence known to the resident(s). Since the drugs can flushed down and/or drained down quickly the exigency existed. Justice Ginsburg dissent. Ginsburg states that exigent circumstances only applies in genuine emergency, Circumstances qualify as exigent when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury, or danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed, or that a suspect will escape. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant presumptively unreasonable and Ginsburg view is that our homes will not remain secure if Police can knock on the door and enter the premises without a warrant on the mere suspicion based on the sound of moving things they heard. Conclusion: It is established by the Court by that exigent circumstances applied in this case in order to protect the evidence from being destroyed. The lower courts developed and adopted doctrine police-created exigency doctrine, in which police may not rely on the need to further proceed their investigation if the situation of exigency was either created or manufactured by the police. The Court held that such doctrine provides no clear guidance. It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment if police officers enter a house to search and seize the evidence preventing it from being destroyed.