A legal brief on the U.S Supreme

Week 6 case brief

Name:

Institution

A legal brief on the U.S Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S (2011)

Facts

Police followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex in Lexington, Kentucky. They knocked loudly on the door of the apartment. Smell of marijuana was eminent from outside the door. They proceeded to announce their entry and knocked again loudly on the door. While outside, they heard noise emanating from the house. They believed that the noises were due to evidence destruction. They announced their intention to gain access to the apartment once more and proceeded to kick open the door and found the suspect and other people. They saw drugs in plain view, plus other evidence after a continued search.

Issue

Police did not have a warrant of entry into the apartment but proceeded to access the premises forcibly, after announcing their intention of entry, though. In court, the respondent denied the intention of destroying evidence. The Circuit Court denied his motion. The Court argued that given the exigent circumstances, warrantless entry into the premises was justified in order to prevent destruction of evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal the court’s ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeal affirmed his plea. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed this, assuming that exigent circumstances rule applied and that the search was warrantless and could have led to the respondent’s intention to destroy evidence. According to the police, there was need to move into the premises quickly to prevent possible destruction of evidence since they had all reasons to believe that that the respondent was engaging in the process of evidence destruction.

Rule

The exigent circumstances rule applied since police failed to create the exigency by violating the Fourth .............