WT Forums

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Share3921(76)
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
12:47 p.m. CDT, May 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Related

STORY: Arizona taking immigration law to U.S. Supreme Court

STORY: Companies can block customers' class-action lawsuits, Supreme Court rules

STORY: Supreme Court hears data-mining case, with repercussions to come
Topics
Kentucky
Crimes
Punishment
See more topics »

Residents who \"attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame\" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. \"Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,\" she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, \"The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.\"

One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called \"Police. Police. Police,\" and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against \"unreasonable searches and seizures.\" Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case \"was entirely lawful,\" and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

\"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,\" he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

\"Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet,\" he added.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether the police faced an emergency situation in this case.

Ginsburg, however, said the court's approach \"arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases.\" She said the police did not face a \"genuine emergency\" and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.

A second mainstream source

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6878.story

Cypress police move towards a house as they respond to a report of shots fired. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times / October 7, 1999)
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
May 17, 2011
Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

RELATED

STORY: Winklevosses to seek Supreme Court review of Facebook settlement

STORY: Supreme Court: Class (action) dismissed

STORY: Supreme Court lets companies block class-action suits
STORY: Arizona taking immigration law to U.S. Supreme Court
STORY: California Supreme Court addresses legal deadlines for tobacco lawsuits

Residents who \"attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame\" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's \"core requirement\" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

\"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?\" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake \"knock and talk\" raids.

\"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along,\" said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, \"The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.\" One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, \"Police,\" and heard people moving inside.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. Instead of the original suspect, they found Hollis King smoking marijuana and arrested him. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers' conduct \"was entirely lawful,\" and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

\"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,\" Alito wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case.

david.savage@latimes.com

Bullshit

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

why not our rights don't mean anything.

Soon we won't be free anymore....of course the media and government will say it's for our own good and most will believe it...until they come to their door and take them away...

_________________

It is a stretch, but I do understand this better now better than I did 2 weeks ago. 4th Amendment is HUGE here at FLETC, it's by far the biggest topic we cover, a few hours every day. This has a lot to do with your REP (reasonable expectation of privacy) and the exceptions to a warrant requirement (one being the exigent circumstances). It's summed up by saying \"Right to be, right to see\". If the police have a right to be there, they have a right to see (or smell) what is there. It is irrelevant why they were in the hallway, Maybe there were looking for a rapist. Maybe they just felt like walking down the hallway. Either way, how they got there is irrelevant, they were lawfully in the hallway. So, now that they are lawfully in the hallway, if they saw (or smelled) a crime being committed, they haven't broken the 4A and have at a minimum RS. They smell weed. They hear sounds indicating the evidence of a crime is being destroyed. Now they have and exigent circumstance and may enter without a warrant, lawfully.

My problem with this is, that the court ruled that \"sounds of people moving\" coming from the apartment was enough to justify an exigent circumstance. Of course there's sounds coming from inside, people are inside. If Mr. Police Officer smells weed, he had RS, so he knocks on the door. He hears Mr. and Mrs. Citizen saying \"Oh no its the police, flush that down the toilet\" now we are a lot closer, if not at, an exigent circumstance.

I think they went too far with the \"sounds of people moving\" part. Either that, or this article isn't articulating the exact facts very well. The police didn't see or hear enough to create an exigent circumstance in my book.

I think that the bigger picture in this case is that it illustrates just how much freedom and privacy and security vs their own gov't that the US people have lost due to the war in drugs.

Easily the most costly, most deadly, most utterly unsuccessful and failed \"war\" in US history.