Kentucky V King 563 US 452 Case Study
Case Citation: Kentucky v King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).
Parties: Deshaun King v Kentucky
Facts: Police officers were in pursuit of a suspected drug dealer, and were led to an apartment complex. The officers ended up outside of a certain apartment, were the smell of marijuana emanated. The police knocked loudly, and from inside the apartment they heard movement, and the police believed that the sounds were an indication that evidence was being destroyed. The police announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked the door down to find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain sight, and arrested King and others. They continued to search the apartment and came across other evidence. King argued that due to the officers not having a warrant …show more content…
The Court ruled against King stating that the officers were justified in their actions to prevent the loss of evidence in the case. King entered a conditional guilty plea, and appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decided to uphold the judgement of the of the previous court. The appeals court believed that officers had probable cause to conduct a search without a warrant because of the exigent circumstances and their fear of the possible destruction of evidence, and the failure of King and other to answer the door when they knocked and announced their identity. The trial went on to the Kentucky Supreme Court where the decision of the lower court was reversed, because it believed that any evidence obtained from the search was the result of unconstitutional behavior by the police officers. They believed that officers should have reasonably understood that their actions leading up into the bust (banging on the door and announcing “police) would have been enough of a catalyst to cause the individuals in the apartment to destroy evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court sought the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court due to the split of opinion between the state and the federal courts, regarding the weight of exigent
Parties: Deshaun King v Kentucky
Facts: Police officers were in pursuit of a suspected drug dealer, and were led to an apartment complex. The officers ended up outside of a certain apartment, were the smell of marijuana emanated. The police knocked loudly, and from inside the apartment they heard movement, and the police believed that the sounds were an indication that evidence was being destroyed. The police announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked the door down to find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain sight, and arrested King and others. They continued to search the apartment and came across other evidence. King argued that due to the officers not having a warrant …show more content…
The Court ruled against King stating that the officers were justified in their actions to prevent the loss of evidence in the case. King entered a conditional guilty plea, and appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decided to uphold the judgement of the of the previous court. The appeals court believed that officers had probable cause to conduct a search without a warrant because of the exigent circumstances and their fear of the possible destruction of evidence, and the failure of King and other to answer the door when they knocked and announced their identity. The trial went on to the Kentucky Supreme Court where the decision of the lower court was reversed, because it believed that any evidence obtained from the search was the result of unconstitutional behavior by the police officers. They believed that officers should have reasonably understood that their actions leading up into the bust (banging on the door and announcing “police) would have been enough of a catalyst to cause the individuals in the apartment to destroy evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court sought the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court due to the split of opinion between the state and the federal courts, regarding the weight of exigent