Prepare a legal brief on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) which can be found at this link. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1272.ZS.htmlThe case is also attached to this assignment.By briefing a case, you are reading the entire court opinion then summarizing it into your own words so that the important information from the brief is easier to understand and remember.Legal case names should be done in standard “Blue Book” format. Example:York v. Smith, 65 U.S. 294 (1995). For further information see http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation and look under the “How to Cite” section. In addition see the web resource section for this course and click on the folder marked “how to brief a case”.Case briefs are used to highlight the key information contained within a case for use within the legal community as court cases can be quite lengthy. When writing case briefs, all information must be properly cited. Make sure you are not copying and pasting from your source. Most of the material should be paraphrased; quotations should make up no more than 10% of the brief. Note: since the purpose to is highlight and summarize key information, merely copying and pasting from the case does not accomplish this goal. You must summarize the facts in your own words, using quotations sparingly.
kentucky_v._king.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
KENTUCKY, Petitioner v. HOLLIS DESHAUN KING
No. 09-1272
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
131 S. Ct. 1849; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306; 22 Fla.
L. Weekly Fed. S 979
January 12, 2011, Argued
May 16, 2011, Decided
NOTICE:
The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: On remand at, Remanded by King v. Commonwealth, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 45 (Ky., Apr. 26,
2012)
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY.
King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 3 (Ky., 2010)
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed respondent’s drug conviction, holding that
exigent circumstances could not justify the officers’ search under the Fourth Amendment because it was reasonably
foreseeable that the occupants in the apartment would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence. Petitioner State of Kentucky’s petition for certiorari was granted.
OVERVIEW: The exigent circumstances rule justified a warrantless search when the conduct of the police preceding
the exigency was reasonable. The exigent circumstances rule applied when the police did not gain entry by means of an
actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment. One officer testified without contradiction that the officers
banged on the door as loud as they could and announced either “Police, police, police” or “This is the police.” There was
no evidence they either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the
apartment. There was no evidence of a “demand” of any sort, much less a demand that amounted to a threat to violate
the Fourth Amendment. Any contradictory evidence not brought to the Supreme Court’s attention was for the state court
to address on remand. As the officer testified, noises inside the apartment then led the officers to believe that drugrelated evidence was about to be destroyed, and, at that point they explained they were going to make entry. Given that
the announcement was made after the exigency arose, it could not have created the exigency.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court of Kentucky’s judgment reversing the conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 8-1 Decision; 1 Dissent.
CORE TERMS: exigency, door, apartment, exigent circumstances, occupant, law enforcement, warrantless search,
knock, destruction of evidence, inside, warrant requirement, probable cause, destroyed, destroy evidence, police offic-
Page 2
131 S. Ct. 1849, *; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, **;
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541, ***; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306
ers, marijuana, announced, searches and seizures, warrantless entry, reasonably foreseeable, police-created, impermissibly, noise”, warrantless, announcing, “emergency”, knocking, knocked, loudly, quotation marks omitted
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Warrants
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Destruction of
Evidence
[HN1] It is well established that exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit
police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Accusatory Instruments > Dismissal > Appellate Review
Criminal Law & Procedure > Appeals > Remands & Remittiturs
[HN2] The United States Supreme Court’s reversal of a state supreme court’s decision reversing a conviction reinstates
the judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the trial court. The absence of an indictment due to the trial
court’s dismissal of the indictment in the interim does not change matters. Upon the defendant’s conviction and sentence, the indictment that was returned against him is merged into his conviction and sentence.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
[HN3] See U.S. Const. amend IV.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
[HN4] The text of the Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements. First, all searches and seizures must be
reasonable. Second, a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Warrants
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
[HN5] Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, the United States Supreme Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. This presumption
may be overcome in some circumstances because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.
Accordingly, the warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions. One well-recognized exception applies
when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Destruction of
Evidence
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Hot Pursuit
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Protection of
Officers & Others
[HN6] Under the emergency aid exception, officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance
to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Police officers may enter premises without a
warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. And, the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence
has long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Page 3
131 S. Ct. 1849, *; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, **;
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541, ***; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Warrants
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Destruction of
Evidence
[HN7] In applying the imminent destruction of evidence exception to the search warrant requirement for the creation or
manufacturing of an exigency by the police, courts require something more than mere proof that fear of detection by the
police caused the destruction of evidence. An additional showing is obviously needed because in some sense the police
always create the exigent circumstances. That is to say, in the vast majority of cases in which evidence is destroyed by
persons who are engaged in illegal conduct, the reason for the destruction is fear that the evidence will fall into the
hands of law enforcement. Consequently, a rule that precludes the police from making a warrantless entry to prevent the
destruction of evidence whenever their conduct causes the exigency would unreasonably shrink the reach of this wellestablished exception to the warrant requirement.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
[HN8] Warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement. Therefore, the exigent circumstances rule justifies a warrantless
search when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable in the same sense. Where the police did not
create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless
entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Plain View
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Plain View
[HN9] Law enforcement officers may seize evidence in plain view, provided that they have not violated the Fourth
Amendment in arriving at the spot from which the observation of the evidence is made. It is an essential predicate to
any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed. So long as this prerequisite is satisfied, however, it
does not matter that the officer who makes the observation may have gone to the spot from which the evidence was seen
with the hope of being able to view and seize the evidence. Instead, the Fourth Amendment requires only that the steps
preceding the seizure be lawful.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Consent to Search > General Overview
[HN10] Officers may seek consent-based encounters if they are lawfully present in the place where the consensual encounter occurs. If consent is freely given, it makes no difference that an officer may have approached the person with
the hope or expectation of obtaining consent.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
[HN11] Law enforcement officers do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances when they act in an entirely lawful manner.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Administrative Searches
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Inventory Searches
[HN12] The United States Supreme Court’s cases have repeatedly rejected a subjective approach to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, asking only whether the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the
action. Indeed, the Court has never held, outside limited contexts such as an inventory search or administrative inspection, that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment. The reasons for
Page 4
131 S. Ct. 1849, *; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, **;
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541, ***; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306
looking to objective factors, rather than subjective intent, are clear. Legal tests based on reasonableness are generally
objective, and the Court has long taken the view that evenhanded law enforcement is best achieved by the application of
objective standards of conduct, rather than standards that depend upon the subjective state of mind of the officer.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Plain View
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Plain View
[HN13] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that police may seize evidence without a warrant only
when they come across the evidence by happenstance. Police may seize evidence in plain view even though the officers
may be interested in an item of evidence and fully expect to find it in the course of a search.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
[HN14] The calculus of reasonableness for purposes of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement
must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Probable Cause
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Search Warrants > Probable Cause > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonableness
& Prudence Standard
[HN15] Law enforcement officers are under no constitutional duty to call a halt to criminal investigation the moment
they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Warrantless Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General Overview
[HN16] Any warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances must, of course, be supported by a genuine exigency.
DECISION: [**865] Need to prevent destruction of evidence held to constitute exigency (1) not created by police
officers by knocking on apartment door and announcing presence; and (2) justifying warrantless search where officers
did not violate or threaten to violate Fourth Amendment prior to exigency.
SUMMARY: Procedural posture: The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed respondent’s drug conviction, holding
that exigent circumstances could not justify the officers’ search under the Fourth Amendment because it was reasonably
foreseeable that the occupants in the apartment would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence. Petitioner State of Kentucky’s petition for certiorari was granted.
Overview: The exigent circumstances rule justified a warrantless search when the conduct of the police preceding the
exigency was reasonable. The exigent circumstances rule applied when the police did not gain entry by means of an
actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment. One officer testified without contradiction that the officers
banged on the door as loud as they could and announced either “Police, police, police” or “This is the police.” There was
no evidence they either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the
apartment. There was no evidence of a “demand” of any sort, much less a demand that amounted to a threat to violate
the Fourth Amendment. Any contradictory evidence not brought to the Supreme Court’s attention was for the state court
to address on remand. As the officer testified, noises inside the apartment then led the officers to believe that drugrelated evidence was about to be destroyed, and, at that point they explained they were going to make entry. Given that
the announcement was made after the exigency arose, it could not have created the exigency.
Outcome: The Supreme Court of Kentucky’s judgment reversing the conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 8-1 Decision; 1 Dissent.
Page 5
131 S. Ct. 1849, *; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, **;
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541, ***; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306
LAWYERS’ EDITION HEADNOTES: [**866]
[**LEdHN1]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß25.2
LACK OF WARRANT — EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Headnote:[1]
It is well established that exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police
officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant. (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch.
J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)
[**LEdHN2]
APPEAL ß1749
REVERSAL OF CONVICTION — EFFECT
Headnote:[2]
The United States Supreme Court’s reversal of a state supreme court’s decision reversing a conviction reinstates the
judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the trial court. The absence of an indictment due to the trial court’s
dismissal of the indictment in the interim does not change matters. Upon the defendant’s conviction and sentence, the
indictment that was returned against him is merged into his conviction and sentence. (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch.
J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)
[**LEdHN3]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß4
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Headnote:[3]
See U.S. Const. amend. IV, which provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.” (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)
[**LEdHN4]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß4
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Headnote:[4]
The text of the Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements. First, all searches and seizures must be reasonable. Second, a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized
search is set out with particularity. (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)
[**LEdHN5]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß5 SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß25.8
LACK OF WARRANT — PRESUMPTIVE UNREASONABLENESS — EXCEPTIONS — EXIGENCIES
Headnote:[5]
Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, the United States
Supreme Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law
Page 6
131 S. Ct. 1849, *; 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, **;
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3541, ***; 79 U.S.L.W. 4306
that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. This presumption may be
overcome in some circumstances because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Accordingly, the warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions. One well-recognized exception applies when
the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer,
Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.) [**867]
[**LEdHN6]
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß25.2
WARRANT REQUIREMENT — EXCEPTIONS
Headnote:[6]
Under the emergency aid exception, officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an
injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Police officers may enter premises without a warrant
when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. And, the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence has
long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search. (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, Ch. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)
[**LEdHN7]
EVIDENCE ß419 SEARCH AND SEIZURE ß25.2
WARRANT REQUIREMENT — EXCEPTION — PROOF NEEDE …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
