Kentucky vs. King: Is a Warrantless Entry Justified during Emergency Situation?
CRJU 4307
Kentucky v. King
Kentucky Supreme Court 2010
Question of Law Is a warrantless entry justified during emergency situation even if the police create the emergency situation through exigent circumstances?
Facts
A confidential informant entered a suspected drug dealer’s apartment in order to purchase crack cocaine. Once the transaction was completed, the confidential informant signaled an undercover officer who then radioed uniformed police to the suspect’s apartment. Once officers responded to the scene, they approached the door of the apartment and encountered a strong odor of burning marijuana. Officers then announced their presence while knocking on the apartment door. Once the announcement of “police” was made, the officers then heard shuffling noises inside of the apartment that were consistent with the sound of evidence being destroyed. Officers then announced their intent to enter the apartment and then kicked in the door. Once inside the apartment, the officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view. Inside of the apartment, officers apprehended the respondent, King, and others, who were in possession of drugs. King’s attorney argued that the warrantless search and seizure of the evidence within the apartment violated his client’s fourth amendment rights. The attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence which he claimed was illegally obtained. The court found that the warrantless entry was justified due to exigent circumstances which the officers encountered when they approached the apartment. These circumstances included the strong odor presence of marijuana, failure to respond to the door, and the movement which sounded consistent with the destruction of evidence.
Ruling
King’s attorney then filed an appeal after the circuit court’s initial ruling. The Kentucky court of appeals then upheld the circuit court’s ruling stating that the officers did not create the exigent circumstances therefore, the search was
Kentucky v. King
Kentucky Supreme Court 2010
Question of Law Is a warrantless entry justified during emergency situation even if the police create the emergency situation through exigent circumstances?
Facts
A confidential informant entered a suspected drug dealer’s apartment in order to purchase crack cocaine. Once the transaction was completed, the confidential informant signaled an undercover officer who then radioed uniformed police to the suspect’s apartment. Once officers responded to the scene, they approached the door of the apartment and encountered a strong odor of burning marijuana. Officers then announced their presence while knocking on the apartment door. Once the announcement of “police” was made, the officers then heard shuffling noises inside of the apartment that were consistent with the sound of evidence being destroyed. Officers then announced their intent to enter the apartment and then kicked in the door. Once inside the apartment, the officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view. Inside of the apartment, officers apprehended the respondent, King, and others, who were in possession of drugs. King’s attorney argued that the warrantless search and seizure of the evidence within the apartment violated his client’s fourth amendment rights. The attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence which he claimed was illegally obtained. The court found that the warrantless entry was justified due to exigent circumstances which the officers encountered when they approached the apartment. These circumstances included the strong odor presence of marijuana, failure to respond to the door, and the movement which sounded consistent with the destruction of evidence.
Ruling
King’s attorney then filed an appeal after the circuit court’s initial ruling. The Kentucky court of appeals then upheld the circuit court’s ruling stating that the officers did not create the exigent circumstances therefore, the search was