Hollis D. King Case Analysis
Facts: Hollis D. King was arrested after a search of his apartment. Local police department officers had probable cause to force entering and searching King apartment. Incident to search and arrest stemmed from a strong odor of what appeared to be burning illegal narcotics. Prior to entering the apartment, Police Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. The occupants in the apartments did not respond. Under the suspicion of valuable evidence being destroyed the officers forced entering into the apartment. As the officers entered the apartment the odor of the burning substance became stronger. The smell of the burning substance created the exigent circumstance in the probable cause and the case at trial. Without a warrant,
…show more content…
Bad Faith: Did the police wrongfully create the exigent situations with the bad faith intent to avoid the requirement to obtain a warrant prior to the search? No. The legal test in this case should be objective, based on the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than on standards based on the subjective state of mind of the police.
2. Reasonable Forcibility: May the police rely on an exigency if it was reasonably foreseeable that police tactics would create the exigent circumstances? No. The Court rejects the notion that the police may seize evidence without a warrant only when they come across the evidence by accident.
3. Probable Cause and Time to Secure a Warrant: Are the police at fault if, after obtaining evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to search, they do not seek a warrant, but instead knock on the door to speak with the occupant or obtain consent to search? No. This approach unjustifiably interferes with legitimate the police tactics. There are many entirely proper reasons why the police may not want to seek a search warrant as soon as the minimum evidence needed to establish probable cause is …show more content…
This caused a reasonable person to believe inevitable entry will happen. The police had good reason to knock on the door with some sense of authority, which alerted the resident. When the police knock on a door the occupants had the option to open the door and speak to the police. If the resident opens the door and speak with police, the resident does not have to allow the police to enter the resident. The resident can stop answering questions at any time during the interview. Residents who choose to answer question and attempt to destroy evidence put themselves at risk for a warrantless search, under exigent circumstances. Evidence in plain view rule applies.
Decision: In an 8-1 decision, The US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings that are consistent with the Court’s
Bad Faith: Did the police wrongfully create the exigent situations with the bad faith intent to avoid the requirement to obtain a warrant prior to the search? No. The legal test in this case should be objective, based on the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than on standards based on the subjective state of mind of the police.
2. Reasonable Forcibility: May the police rely on an exigency if it was reasonably foreseeable that police tactics would create the exigent circumstances? No. The Court rejects the notion that the police may seize evidence without a warrant only when they come across the evidence by accident.
3. Probable Cause and Time to Secure a Warrant: Are the police at fault if, after obtaining evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to search, they do not seek a warrant, but instead knock on the door to speak with the occupant or obtain consent to search? No. This approach unjustifiably interferes with legitimate the police tactics. There are many entirely proper reasons why the police may not want to seek a search warrant as soon as the minimum evidence needed to establish probable cause is …show more content…
This caused a reasonable person to believe inevitable entry will happen. The police had good reason to knock on the door with some sense of authority, which alerted the resident. When the police knock on a door the occupants had the option to open the door and speak to the police. If the resident opens the door and speak with police, the resident does not have to allow the police to enter the resident. The resident can stop answering questions at any time during the interview. Residents who choose to answer question and attempt to destroy evidence put themselves at risk for a warrantless search, under exigent circumstances. Evidence in plain view rule applies.
Decision: In an 8-1 decision, The US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Kentucky Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings that are consistent with the Court’s