Case brief

Legal Brief

Lidia Williams

American Military University

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

Parties: Kentucky, Plaintiff / Appellant

Hollis Deshaun King, Defendant / Appellee

Facts: The case at hand relates to a search conducted by the police in an apartment situated in Lexington, Kentucky where an undercover police officers named Gibbons established a crackdown on the buying of cocaine outside the apartment. As this occurred an undercover police officer simultaneously observed a cocaine buy-selling transaction from an unmarked vehicle parked in a nearby lot. Subsequently Gibbons issued a radio call to the uniformed officers to act on the suspect and informed them that the suspect in question was swiftly heading towards the breezeway and so asked them to be fast before the suspect could have vanished into an apartment to which he was heading, the apartment number twenty. Acting on the radio call alert, the uniformed officers came into the neighboring parking lot and left their car before running towards the breezeway. In their engagement, they noticed a door being shut and established the smell of a burnt marijuana. At the end of the way, the police came across two apartments one being on the left and another on the right and were not sure of the apartment into which the suspect had entered. In his radio alert however, Gibbons had explained that the suspect had moved into the apartment on the right which was not heard though by the officers because they were already out of their vehicles. Due to the smell of marijuana from the left apartment, they went that direction towards the door and banged loudly on the door as they could while announcing their presence to the occupants, as was testified by one of the uniformed officers, Steven Cobb. Mr. Cobb further explained that they started to hear people and things moving from the inside just as soon as they announced their presence, acts that made the police to believe that the destruction of the drug-related evidence was being done by the occupants. It is at this instance that the police announced their intention to make their entry inside the apartment after which they found three individuals in the front room, Hollis King, the defendant, his girlfriend and their guest who at the point was smoking marijuana. The officers then did a protective search on the apartment from which they came across marijuana and cocaine powder and subsequently cash, crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia

Procedural History: Officers in Lexington, Kentucky pursued a drug dealer suspect into his apartment after being tipped by their un-uniformed colleague undercover. During the engagement they smelled marijuana from the outside of the apartment, banged the door and announced that they were present. Soon after banging on the door, the officers heard noises from inside the apartment and believed they could be associated with the suspects destroying evidence. So the officers informed the occupants that they intended to make an entry and subsequently kicked in the door, found the defendant and others and saw the drugs in their protective search and gathered more evidence in their subsequent search. The Plaintiff then arraigned the defendant in a circuit court which however, refused the defendants motion to suppress the evidence citing that the exigent situation arising from the need to block the attempt of destroying evidence justified the unwarranted search by the officers. Following this, the defendant pleaded for a conditional guilt thus reserving his right to file an appeal over the suppression ruling by the circuit court which the Kentucky Court of Appeal affirmed. However, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the ruling citing an assumption that the exigent circumstance existed but could not validate the manner of search carried out by the officers. Furthermore, the rule regards to the exigent situation did not apply as held by the court because the police officers could have anticipated that their conduct could trigger the occupants of the apartment to destroy evidence.

Issues:

Issue 1: It is clearly evident under the constitution law, sub article outlining the bill of rights particularly the fundamental rights of citizens relating to conduct of a search or seizure that the occurrence of exigent circumstances that encompasses the need to prevent an act of destroying the underlying evidence allows the police officers to carry out an otherwise permissible search on the victim or premises of the victim not withstanding first obtaining a warrant permitting them to do so.

Issue 2: The Fourth Amendment act states that 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 persons or things to be seized

Issue 3: The composition of the Fourth Amendment reveals two requirements which include; All conducts of searches and possible seizures have to be absolutely reasonable and that, a search warrant may not be issued to the suspect until the scope of the search that has been authorized is identified with certainty and the probable cause of the circumstance also identified with certainty. Even though the text of the Fourth Amendment is not specific as to the time for which the search warrant should be obtained by the police, the Supreme Court of the United States have made reference that a warrant has to be secured by the investigating party. Generally, the Fourth Amendment act requires that the associated searches and seizures within a person’s home in a situation where a warrant is not produced is presumed to be unreasonable. This rule however, may be overlooked in certain situations generally because its principle objective is to prove the reasonableness of carrying out an action of a search or seizure. Consequently, this implies various reasonable exceptions attached to obtaining of a warrant so as to conduct a search. Therefore, such exceptions may be applied in situations where the exigencies of the circumstance creates the needs of the police or the investigating authority to be so vital that even a warrantless search or seizure is deemed to be of reasonable nature as outlined in the Fourth Amendment.

Holdings:

Issue: Fourth Amendment act requires that the associated searches and seizures within a person’s home in a situation where a warrant is not produced is presumed to be unreasonable. The police could have foreseen that their actions would have triggered the defendant to destroy evidence thus the exigent circumstance rule do not apply.

Reasoning: The Plaintiff held the following reasoning for their position

Issue: Fourth Amendment act requires that the associated searches and seizures within a person’s home in a situation where a warrant is not produced is presumed to be unreasonable. This rule however, may be overlooked in certain situations generally because its principle objective is to prove the reasonableness of carrying out an action of a search or seizure. Consequently, this implies various reasonable exceptions attached to obtaining of a warrant so as to conduct a search. Therefore, such exceptions may be applied in situations where the exigencies of the circumstance creates the needs of the police or the investigating authority to be so vital that even a warrantless search or seizure is deemed to be of reasonable nature as outlined in the Fourth Amendment.

Decision

It is absolutely ascertained that the occurrence of exigent situations encompassing the requirement to prevent an eminent destruction of associated evidence allows law enforcers like the police to carry out an otherwise permissible search notwithstanding the need to obtain a warrant for the search in the first instance, particularly in this case, Kentucky, Petitioner v. Hollis Deshaun King, it is established whether the act of the police, knocking on the door of the defendants residence and further going ahead to announce that they are present would have triggered the defendant to destroy the associated evidence. However, Kentucky Supreme Court in its ruling stated that the exigent situation is non-applicable to this particular scenario citing that the police should have possibly anticipated and foreseen the fact that their conduct of knocking and announcing their presence at the defendants’ residence would have definitely prompted the defendant to try to destroy the evidence. However, it is observed that the police conduct prior to their entry into the defendants’ apartment was lawful in entirety and so up to this particular point, the exigent circumstance of the law would have applied. Thus, unless otherwise determined, the ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court should be upheld because the conduct of the officers was absolutely unnecessary.

References

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S.___ (2011) 131 S. Ct. 1849; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865; 2011