You are on page 1of 2

Kentucky versus King: When Warrants Are Not Necessary

In 2010, police broke into the residence of Hollis King, because they believed a fleeing
suspect had entered his residence. Once inside the home, the police saw illegal drugs in plain view.
Hollis King was charged with trafficking marijuana, trafficking controlled substances, and persistent
felony offender status. Hollis King argued in the court case Kentucky versus King that the discovery
of illegal drugs was impermissible in court, because the police had violated his Fourth Amendment
rights. While the Fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable search and seizure, there
are circumstances when police can enter a home without a warrant. Since the police were chasing
an arrestee, heard evidence being destroyed inside the residence, and saw illegal drugs in plain
view, they had the right to enter Hollis Kings home and charge him for his illegal drugs.
In a separate Supreme Court Case United States versus Santana, it was established that the
police have the legal right to enter a private residence if they start a chase with an arrestee in a
public place (1976). In the case of Kentucky versus King, the police initially chased an arrestee who
ran from a drug bust. The police followed the man to an apartment building and heard a door slam
shut. Although the police did not see which apartment the criminal entered, the events that followed
support their decision to enter Hollis Kings apartment.
When the police approached Hollis Kings residence, they could smell the odor of marijuana.
They assumed this apartment was the residence of the criminal caught in the drug bust. However,
the smell of marijuana is not necessarily probable cause to search a house (Texas v. Leo Steelman
and Ian Steelman, 2002). At that point, the police had not entered the home. When the police knocked
on Hollis Kings door and shouted who they were, they could hear people rushing and items being
moved. This led the police to believe that evidence was being destroyed. According to the business
book Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and Global Issues,
warrantless searches are permitted if it is likely that evidence will be destroyed (Cheeseman, p.
156, 2016). Consequently, this noise was sufficient for the police to enter the residence. However,
there is still the matter of Kings illegal drugs and whether the police had probable cause to press
charges.

Even though the police had the right to enter Kings home, did they have legal basis to charge
for Hollis drugs? Yes, because in this situation the illegal drugs were in plain view to the officers.
According to another Supreme Court Case Warden v. Hayden, if the police are in a place where they are
lawfully allowed to be and they see accessible property in plain view that is recognized as contraband or
contraband instruments, they may seize them (1967). Due to this detail in the law, the police had the
right to charge Hollis King for his drugs.

In the United States of America, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable
search and seizure, but there are still scenarios when reasonable search and seizure is necessary. In this
case, the police chasing an arrestee, the sounds of evidence being destroyed, and the illegal drugs in
plain view supported the entrance of police in Kings residence, the confiscation of his drugs, and Kings
criminal charges.

Bibliography

Cheeseman, H. R. (2016). Business law: legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and
international issues. Boston: Pearson.

Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 2011 U.S. Lexis 3541 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2011
Texas v. Leo Steelman and Ian Steelman, 1022-00, 1023-00 (2002)

United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967)

You might also like