It is always important to monitor The Supreme Court. Much like in the case of Connick v. Thompson when the Court loosened the limits on the right to a fair trial, in Kentucky v. King, the Court loosened the limits the Fourth Amendment places upon police.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
Among the most important distinctions that have kept the United States from becoming a police state has been the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that police are required to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to conducting a search of a person, his belongings or his home. The Fourth Amendment reads:
“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.”
The Amendment was added to the Constitution in response to abuses by the King’s soldiers in searching and sometimes ransacking the homes of colonists. In the more than 220 years since the Amendment was adopted, the court has carved out a variety of exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a protective patdown search, vehicle searches because of their inherent nature to leave a scene and others. Generally, however, the Supreme Court has held that searches of someone’s home without a warrant were illegal. On May 16, 2011 the Court opened the door wide for police to burst into a home without a warrant for very little reason.
Facts of Kentucky v. King
Police in Lexington, Kentucky were involved in a controlled purchase of crack cocaine. One officer watched the transaction take place, and as the dealer left the observing officer radioed others that the suspect was entering a nearby apartment building and they should hurry up to apprehend him. Officers in marked cars headed to the scene but the suspect entered the building ahead of them, turned down a hallway and entered an apartment.
There were two apartments that the suspect could possibly have entered, one on the left, one on the right. The officers smelled marijuana emanating from the apartment on the left. As a result, the officers approached the door on the left, banged on the door as loud as they could, and announced themselves as police officers.
The officers heard some shuffling around in the apartment, but no one answered the door. Those sounds led officers to believe evidence was to be destroyed, so they announced they were going to enter, and proceeded to break down the door. Inside they found some cocaine, some marijuana and drug paraphernalia. They did not find the dealer that had participated in the crack cocaine sale. They later learned the dealer was in the apartment on the right.
The Unlucky Occupant of the Apartment on the Left
The unlucky occupant of the apartment on the left, Hollis Deshaun King, was arrested and eventually sentenced to eleven years in prison. The Kentucky Supreme Court found that the search of King’s apartment was illegal, that the officers should have found a judge and gotten a search warrant. The Kentucky Supreme Court overturned King’s conviction. This is the historic role of the Fourth Amendment, especially when it comes to someone’s home.
The US Supreme Court disagreed with the Kentucky Supreme Court. Justice Alito said, in light of the facts given to them, this was a situation that was an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The search of King’s home was legal despite the fact the officers had no warrant and that his conviction should be reinstated.
Justice Alito, The Supreme Court & Exigent Circumstances
The Supreme Court relied upon the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment. Justice Alito began the court’s opinion with:
“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.”
Up until this decision, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to a home. Warrantless entry has been allowed to a house for the eminently reasonable purposes of rendering emergency assistance to an injured occupant, to protect the well being of an endangered occupant, or the “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon. In some limited instances, protection of evidence has been allowed, but generally more has been required than happened in this case.
In this case, the police knocked loudly. They announced they were police. No one answered the door, but the police heard “movement” inside the apartment. They smelled marijuana. They did not know if the dealer involved in their investigation was in that apartment. They broke down the door. The United States Supreme Court said this was a legal act.
Justice Ginsburg Dissents
This decision was 8-1 with only Justice Ginsburg dissenting. Justice Ginsburg rightly observing:
“Two pillars of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence should have controlled the Court’s ruling: First, ‘whenever practical, [the police must] obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 20 (1968); second, unwarranted ‘searches and seizures inside a home’ bear heightened scrutiny…”
Justice Ginsburg’s observations took only four pages to affirm the principals of the Fourth Amendment that the Supreme Court majority swept away with this decision.
If the police may break down Mr. King’s door based upon a smell, a knock and no answer, there is little to stop them from breaking down anyone’s door based upon a smell, a knock and no answer. Another bit of liberty was taken away from Americans with this decision.
Sources
- The United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment
- Kentucky v. King, United States Supreme Court, No. 09–1272
- Connick v. Thompson, United States Supreme Court, No. 09–571
David J. Shestokas - Mr. Shestokas is a former prosecutor & writes on the Constitution & legal issues for the Save America Foundation & Suite 101.
Join the Conversation