Background: In Lexington, KY, police were conducting an undercover operation to catch someone selling crack cocaine. The seller was being sold out by an undercover informant. When the suspect fled the scene after catching a glimpse of the cops he ran around a corner and into an apartment building causing the cops to lose sight of him. The cops knocked on the door of one apartment and heard people moving around and entered the apartment because the smell of marijuana came through the door. The officers arrested the 3 people in the apartment and searched the apartment for drugs and evidence. Hollis King, his girlfriend, and one other were smoking marijuana. During the protective search they found marijuana and powder cocaine but a second search turned up crack cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. The officers then went to the apartment on the right to find the real
…show more content…
The Court said that police did not try to evade the warrant requirements intentionally and the exigent circumstances supported the warrantless search. In 2010, The Kentucky Supreme Court then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. They said the officers were not in pursuit of the original suspect when they entered the apartment, which makes the entry improper.
Question of the Law: When an emergency has been created by the police, is the exclusionary rule still in effect and apply?
Decision: The Supreme court reversed the decision of the lower courts, 8-1, warrantless searches that are being done in police-created exigent circumstances does not violate the 4th Amendment unless the police create the exigency by threatening or violating the 4th Amendment.
Precedent Cases: Payton v. New York (1980)- Theodore Payton’s house was forcibly entered by New York City Police because they suspected him of a murder. Evidence was then found in the house that linked Payton to the crime. The police entered his home without a
The Court said that police did not try to evade the warrant requirements intentionally and the exigent circumstances supported the warrantless search. In 2010, The Kentucky Supreme Court then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. They said the officers were not in pursuit of the original suspect when they entered the apartment, which makes the entry improper.
Question of the Law: When an emergency has been created by the police, is the exclusionary rule still in effect and apply?
Decision: The Supreme court reversed the decision of the lower courts, 8-1, warrantless searches that are being done in police-created exigent circumstances does not violate the 4th Amendment unless the police create the exigency by threatening or violating the 4th Amendment.
Precedent Cases: Payton v. New York (1980)- Theodore Payton’s house was forcibly entered by New York City Police because they suspected him of a murder. Evidence was then found in the house that linked Payton to the crime. The police entered his home without a