Kentucky v. King

Free Essay Sample «Kentucky v. King»

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

First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service

  • Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
  • Your requirements and targets are always met
  • You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
  • You get a chance to become an excellent student!

What kind of paper do you need?

Type of assignment
Academic level
Title of your paper
Urgency
Number of pages
Spacing
Currency
Total price 12.99 USD
 

* Final order price might be slightly different depending on the current exchange rate of chosen payment system.

 

The respondents and others did not bother to open the door and the noises that were coming from the apartment prompted the police toindicate 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 authoorized 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.

Free Essay Sample «Kentucky v. King»

 

Related essays

Current status

0

Preparing Orders

0

Active Writers

0

Support Agents

Close
 
 
Order your 1st paper and get discount Order now
X
We are online - chat with us!