Case Citation: Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S_ (2011) Parties: Hollis King/ Respondent State of Kentucky (Lexington)/ Petitioner Facts: In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. …show more content…
The search was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Court held that the exigent circumstances were not of the police and that they did not engage in premeditated and intentional conduct so they would not have to fulfill the warrant requirements. Later the Supreme Court reversed the low court, finding that the entry by the police was improper, the police was not in pursuit when the suspect fleeing the apartment when they entered, and that the suspect hand not known that he was being followed the police. The State of Kentucky was granted writ of …show more content…
The exigency are exceptions to the general rules in obtaining a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when a law enforcement officers has a probable cause. At the time the police officers of Lexington, Kentucky did have a probable cause, due to them conducting a drug sting; the police officer smelled the marijuana coming from one of the apartments at the apartment complex. The officers did not have enough time to secure a warrant without them compromising the mission. However, the officers entered the wrong apartment and secured three individual suspect into custody that were charged with felonies that were not related to the drug sting
This case was categorized under the criminal law, as the defendant had to go against the Crown. As for the actual case, the incident first came to attention when a 911 call was made from Godoy’s apartment, which was suddenly cut short before the caller was able to be identified. Despite this, a total of four officers headed to the apartment to confirm any suspicions and to question the resident of the apartment, which was found to be Godoy. As the officers arrived and requested access to Godoy’s apartment, a feminine cry was heard inside. It was this time that Godoy was attempting to close the door on the officers to avoid investigation, but as the officers’ suspicious grew stronger, they forced themselves into the apartment, despite Godoy’s
The crime occurred inside the residents of 28 S. Daisy Avenue Apartment A, on the living room couch. The apartment complex has a common walkway which is located on the south side of the complex. Chuldzhyan’s apartment has a private court yard which is on the south side of the property.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History. info please. Pearson Education, 2007 -. Web. The Web.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
...level and not to the state level (once again undermining state government authority). For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case was one of the most controversial decisions at that time. Up until this decision was made, police in many states had ignored the search and seizure law.
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
When police showed up at the apartment it was trashed and the beds had been stripped and the first thing the police thought was that it was a murder. The officer then began to look around and started hearing a beeping sound and saw the victim’s cell phone beeping on the table. Now at this time the police officer did not have a warrant to search any of the victims stuff but despite his curiosity he picked up the victims phone and started going through her messages. When they went to court the judge had dismissed the case because did not obtain a warrant and had unreasonable evidence. The officer also violated the victim’s fourth amendment. An Example of a legal case is the United States v. The United States district courts on February 24, 1972 and ended on June 19, 1972. The U.S. had charged three different defendants on conspiracy to destroy government property. They ended up going to court because the defendant went to pretrial for the disclosure of electronic surveillance information. The government then cited an affidavit and it had been approved. The government then claimed that the surveillances, which were warrantless, was reasonable because they wanted to protect the national security. I hope you enjoy this paper as much as I enjoyed writing