The Supreme Court, specifically Justice Alito, in an 8-1 decision, weakened the fourth amendment in the case of Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011). Police officers in an undercover operation chased a suspect into an apartment building. The suspect made it to an apartment and the police heard a door slam but they did not see which door it was. The suspect, as the police learned later, entered the apartment on the right but the police knocked on the door on the left. The police claimed that the smelled marijuana smoke coming from the apartment on the left. They banged on the door as loudly as possible and yelled police. They heard things being moved around in the apartment. The officers testified that they thought evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, and drug paraphernalia. The police later found the suspect they originally chased in the apartment on the right.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress based upon the alleged unlawful entry into the home. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed on the trial court, finding that the exigent circumstance had been created by the police. The United States Supreme Court found that banging on the door and announcing that they were the police did not create the exigent circumstance and the police announced that they were entering the apartment only after hearing noises which they described as what they thought evidence being destroyed.
Here is my problem with the court’s decision. The key to allowing entry into the home in Kentucky v. King case was the officer’s testimony that he heard what he thought was evidence being destroyed. There is no way to verify this evidence. The majority of police officers are honest. There are other officers, however, that are not honest at all. They will lie without hesitation. This decision makes it possible for any of those dishonest officers to kick in anyone’s door and then justify that warrantless entry by saying that they thought they heard evidence being destroyed. With that one sentence, the police officers now have nearly unrestrained ability to enter someone’s home without a warrant.
One could argue that police who are willing to lie have always possessed this ability. That is true but this makes it so much easier for them. Instead of concocting some elaborate story, there is just one simple sentence that has to be put forth which will justify a warrantless entry. It seems like this case was specifically written to cater to the dishonest officer who lacks the ability to create an elaborate story to justify and cover-up his unconstitutional activities.
This is just another in a line of cases that continues to erode our rights. Specifically, this case erodes our fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.If you have a question about legal representation, check out my website to see if it is an area of law that I could possibly help you. Here is a link to my website: http://www.ellislawfirm.pro/
