Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kentucky v. king case brief
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kentucky v. king case brief
The requirements of a police officer obtaining an impartial Court ordered search warrant have become a little blurred. It will be easier for the police to decide not to obtain a search warrant when they themselves deem that they have probable cause to believe drugs may be in a home. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when the police think they smell marijuana coupled with the sounds of what they believe could be the destruction of evidence, is reason enough for them to gain forced entry into a home without a search warrant while claiming probable cause and exigent circumstances. Overturning a ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police had the right to break in to an apartment. Upon following an alleged drug dealer into an apartment building, the police in pursuit could not determine which apartment their suspect had entered. The officers smelled marijuana smoke coming from one door, and wrongly assumed that he had entered that one. They then knocked and announced their presence and heard the sound of people moving. At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. The police claimed they had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the entry due to the smell of marijuana. Reasonable suspicion is determined by balancing the need of a warrantless search against the intrusion a search creates concerning the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment reads in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (U.S. Constitution.net, n.d.). The Fourth Amendments requirement of probable... ... middle of paper ... ...ay have had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause that there is destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court was wrong to allow an exigency argument to be used in this case. Works Cited DeLeo, J. (2006). Glossary. The student's guide to understanding constitutional law (p. 267). Clifton Park, N.Y: Thomson Delmar Learning. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948). Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272 (2011). Legal Definition of 'Exigent Circumstances'. (n.d.). The 'Lectric Law Library's Entrance & Welcome. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm. Mincey v. Arizona, 437- U.S. 385, 394 (1978). U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html.
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...
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.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 347-360 Volokh, Eugene 27 Const. Comment. 347 (2010-2011)
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Do the First and Fourth Amendments Protect?" Current Issues & Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin's, 1999. 316-324.
• Slobogin, C. (2012). What Is the Essential Fourth Amendment?. Texas Law Review, 91(2), 403-417.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
The 4th Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
“The US Constitution: 14th Amendment.” The 14th Amendment. N.p., n.d. . Rpt. in The U.S. Constitution. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. The 14th Amendment. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .