Argument preview: When does police conduct create exigent circumstances, thereby precluding an entry or search without a warrant? She further points out that the facts here are indistinguishable from Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948), in which the Court held a warrantless entry and search unconstitutional. [12], In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg contends that the majority allows police to “dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases.”[13] She would rule that the exigency must exist when the police arrive at the scene, and may not be created by their own conduct.

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, set up a drug buy outside of an apartment complex using an undercover informant.

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Argument day podcasts: Kentucky v. King (Adam Schlossman) Argument preview: When does police conduct create exigent circumstances, thereby precluding an entry or search without a warrant? Kentucky Supreme Court actually asked whether officers deliberately created the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement. Read more about Quimbee. King entered a conditional guilty plea in the Fayette Circuit Court, reserving his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from what he argued was an illegal search. They reserved the issue of whether what the officers heard was sufficient to establish exigent circumstances. He also rejects King's proposed rule, which would prohibit officers from creating an exigency by “engag[ing] in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry is imminent and inevitable,” for turning on "subtleties" and requiring a "nebulous and impractical test.". (1 box) Dec 14 2010: Record received from the Supreme Court of Kentucky. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. One exception involves a situation in law school study materials, including 735 video lessons and 4,900+ Here's why 413,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? While the officers did not know which apartment the suspect was in, they could smell burning marijuana coming from inside the apartment on the left. Cancel anytime. King and the others were charged with various drug-related offenses unrelated to the original operation. Get Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. The trial court denied King’s motion and held that the “exigent circumstances” rule to the Fourth Amendment justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the apartment. This website requires JavaScript. Kentucky v. King involves the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Officer Gibson did see the suspect enter the door on the right, but the other officers did not hear his radio transmission because it went to their vehicle. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. "[11], He rejects rules that impose requirements beyond lawful conduct, including bad faith; reasonable foreseeability; probable cause and time to secure a warrant; and standard or good investigative tactics. The Court has held a search or seizure without a warrant presumptively unreasonable. Police-created exigent circumstances in Kentucky v. King, Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky, Reply Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Improvidently Granted, Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Brief for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association in Support of Petitioner, Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner, Brief for the States of Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner, Argument analysis: Justices revisit immigration notice provision, parsing statutory text while urging practical solutions. No contracts or commitments. (19-199), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg awarded Liberty Medal. Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system. On Friday, the justices will hold their Nov. 13 conference. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of

Police believed that the suspect had entered an apartment in an attempt to flee. [14], Subsequent Kentucky Supreme Court Decision, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 563, "Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants", "Kentucky v. King: The One Where the Supreme Court Dishonors the Warrant Requirement in Drug Cases", "FindLaw's Supreme Court of Kentucky case and opinions", "Armando SCHMERBER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA". If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Per one of the officers' testimony, the officers began banging on the left door “as loud as [they] could” and announced, “‘This is the police,’” or “‘Police, police, police,’”[8] after which they heard movements which they believed indicated evidence was going to be destroyed. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. After smelling burnt marijuana emanating from the apartment, the officers knocked loudly on the door and announced their presence. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless search were not of the police's making and that police did not engage in deliberate and intentional conduct to evade the warrant requirement. (Distributed) Dec 13 2010: Record received from Circuit Court of Fayette County, Kentucky. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment. (Distributed) Jan 7 2011

[4] The "emergency aid” exception allows officers to enter a home without a warrant to provide assistance to an occupant who is injured or under imminent threat of injury. He explained that the police officers actions before they entered the apartment, knocking and announcing their presence, were lawful and "no more than any private citizen might do."

Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club (19-547), Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. Assuming, but not deciding, that there were exigent circumstances here, the police actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Merits Briefs. Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, noting that the “exigent circumstances” rule did not apply because the police officers’ conduct impermissibly created the exigency which led to entry into the apartment. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. Submit Event, On Thursday, Sept. 17, the National Constitution Center awarded its Liberty Medal to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a program featuring performances by internationally renowned opera singers and tributes from special guests. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.

The award “honors men and women of courage and conviction who strive to secure the blessings of liberty to people around the globe.” […]. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that, assuming for purposes of argument that exigent circumstances did exist, the exigent circumstances rule applies because the officers did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment. App. No contracts or commitments. The officers pursued the suspect into a breezeway and lost sight of him. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days.