Police conducted a search of an apartment complex in Kentucky. Just outside the apartment, the police set up a controlled purchase of crack cocaine. The officer who was serving undercover, Officer Gibbons, witnessed the transaction take place from an unmarked vehicle in a parking lot. After witnessing the transaction, Officer Gibbons instructed two officers via radio to apprehend the suspect. He informed the two officers that the suspect was moving quickly towards the breezeway of the building and implored the officers to move quickly prior to the suspect entering the apartment building.
Responding to the radio call, the officers drove to the nearby parking lot, exited their vehicles, and hastened to the breezeway. When the officers entered the breezeway, they heard the sound of a door slam shut and smelled a pungent odor of burning marijuana. When the officers reached the end of the breezeway, they saw two apartments, but were unsure of which apartment the suspect has gone into. Although Officer Gibbons radioed the officers to tell them the suspect has gone into the apartment on the right, the responding officers did not hear this information because they had already exited their vehicles. Smelling marijuana emanating from the door on the left, the officers began to approach the apartment door on the left.
The officers approached the door on the left, knocked loudly, and announced their arrival and they were the police. The officers heard people moving about inside the apartment and items being moved. The noises prompted the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was going to be destroyed inside the apartment. The officers the announced they were going to enter the apartment. After the officer kicked in the door and the officers entered, they discovered three people smoking marijuana. The officers conducted a search of the apartment, where they found marijuana and powder cocaine in plain view. In addition, they also found cash, crack cocaine, and other drug paraphernalia.
The defendant was charged with various drug-related offenses. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence on the grounds that the evidence was obtained in the course of a warrantless search. The Circuit Court, however, denied the defendant’s motion. Defendant entered a conditional plea, reserving his right to challenge the denial of the suppression motion on appeal. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry because the police had a reasonable belief that evidence would be destroyed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky, however, reversed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky set forth a two-prong test in examining whether the police impermissibly created the exigent circumstances. To resolve the important legal question at play, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Issue
The legal issue in this case is whether a warrantless search by police in exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment.
Rule
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and generally prohibits police from conducting a search without a warrant that is issued based on “probable cause.”
Analysis
The Kentucky v. King opinion addresses the important question of whether there is an exigent circumstance exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court extrapolated two key components from the Fourth Amendment. First, all searches and seizures are subject to a reasonable analysis. And second, no warrant may be issued unless there is probable cause.
As a starting point, the Court noted that normally, warrantless searches of the home are “presumptively unreasonable.” A recognized exception to the general warrant requirement, however is when there are exigent circumstances. Over the years, the Court has identified a number of exigent circumstances that justify police to enter a home without a warrant. The Court noted that warrantless searches have been traditionally permitted so long as the underlying circumstances make them reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The Court ultimately held that the exigent circumstance exception applies when the police do not gain entry through an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment. While this is the Court’s main holding, the Court does not provide any constructive guidance on what actually constitutes a “threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.” In analyzing whether the police conduct was reasonable, the threshold issue for consideration is whether the police acted reasonably before the exigent circumstance arose. Because the officers did not create the exigent circumstance themselves, nor did the officers “demand” that the door be opened, there the search was reasonable and comfortably fits within the exigent circumstance exception. The effect of the Supreme Court’s holdings is that it will be much more difficult for courts to invalidate warrantless searches that are grounded on the exigent circumstances exception. In addition, the lower courts will need to flush out the details of when police conduct rises to the level of a “violation of the Fourth Amendment” with very little guidance or direction from the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Court reversed the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court and remanded the case for proceedings that were consistent with the Court’s holdings.
