• Live chat
  • Order
 
Menu
Live chat
 

Kentucky v. King

Buy custom Kentucky v. King essay

Facts of the case

After hearing the smell of Marijuana, the police announced their presence by knocking the doors of the apartment in a loud manner. Thereafter the police heard consistent noises, which they suspected would be intended in suppressing the evidence. The police announced their intention of entering the apartment. However, the respondent and others did not bother to open the door consequently; the police kicked the door, and entered. They saw drugs while doing a protective search however; supplementary evidence was consolidated on subsequent searches.

Issue

The respondents and others did not bother to open the door and the noises that were coming from the apartment prompted the police to indicate their intention of entering the apartment. However, the loud knocks on the door by the police is expressly interpreted as causing an exigency situation, which justified entry without a warrant.

Rule

The Supreme Court held that despite the existence of an exigency situation, the search remained invalid. The exigent situations rule did not apply because the police were required to foresee that their conduct would prompt the respondent and others to try to obliterate evidence.

Analysis

The fourth amendment imposes two conditions expressly. They include search and seizures must be reasonable, a warrant may not be issued unless credible cause is suitably determined and the extent of the authorized search is specified with certain distinctiveness. It is notable that, warrantless searches in homes are presumptively perverse.

The basis of the lower court’s ruling is developed on the exception to the exigent situations rule. Exigent circumstances do not justify a search without a warrant when the exigency is a creation of the police. It is notable that, searches without a warrant are only allowable when the situations make it reasonable within the context of the fourth amendment.

Conclusion

Searches in homes without warrants are only allowable if they make meaning within the context of the fourth amendment. Similarly, the exigency created by the police does not call for warrantless searches. Such searches in homes are presumptively perverse.

Buy custom Kentucky v. King essay

← IEEE 802 StandardsThat Is not What Happened →

Related essays

Current status

0%

Satisfied customers

0

Active Writers

0

Operators Online

0

Preparing Orders

Close
 
 
Order now
X