Term: 2010
Docket: 09-1272
Kentucky, Petitioner, v. Hollis Deshaun King
- Pro
09-1272 KENTUCKY V. KING DECISION BELOW: 302 S.W.3d 649 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 CERT. GRANTED 9/28/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment. The officers knocked on the door. They then heard noises which indicated that physical evidence was being destroyed. The officers entered the apartment and found large quantities of drugs. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that this evidence should have been suppressed, ruling that (1) the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the officers created the exigency by knocking on the door, and (2) the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the suspect was not aware he was being pursued. The two questions presented are: 1. When does lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? 2. Does the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement apply only if the government can prove that the suspect was aware he was being pursued? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2008-SC-000274-DG
In the case of Kentucky v. Hollis Deshaun King, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of law enforcement officers who had entered an apartment without a warrant due to suspected drug activity. The police were pursuing a suspect who had sold crack cocaine and mistakenly thought he'd entered King's apartment; they smelled marijuana outside his door, knocked loudly identifying themselves as police and when they heard noises inside that made them think evidence was being destroyed, broke down the door. They found drugs but not their original suspect. King argued this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because there was no exigent circumstance justifying entry without a warrant - particularly since any urgency was created by the police knocking on his door rather than waiting for a warrant before entering premises where they believed criminal activity occurred (the "police-created exigency" doctrine). However, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., SCOTUS held that so long as police did not violate or threaten to violate Fourth Amendment precedents leading up to knock-and-announce moment (which could create artificial exigencies), their subsequent conduct is legal.
In the dissenting opinion for Kentucky v. King, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's ruling significantly erodes Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. She contended that police officers should not be allowed to create exigent circumstances by knocking on a door without a warrant and then using any sounds of movement inside as justification to enter. This, she said, would give law enforcement too much discretion in circumventing constitutional rights. Instead, she suggested that if police believe evidence is being destroyed after they knock or announce their presence at a residence without a warrant, they should retreat and secure the area while obtaining one from a judge.
