police oops to be decided by scotus

Schadenfreude

patriot and widower
Case of the wrong door opens at Supreme Court​
Associated Press/AP Online


By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON - Hollis King and his two friends might be the unluckiest pot smokers in Kentucky.


The three men were sitting around King's apartment in Lexington, Ky., on a Thursday night in October 2005, when police officers knocked on the front door, then kicked it in. They did not have a search warrant.


The police were looking for a man who fled into an apartment building after selling cocaine to an informant. They heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors.


They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling the aroma of burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left.


Their quarry had gone into the apartment on the right. But in King's place, they found one person smoking pot and a small amount of cocaine and money, and arrested King and his friends.


King pleaded guilty to drug charges, but the Kentucky Supreme Court threw out the evidence against him and the conviction, ruling that the police did not have cause to burst into his home without a warrant.


The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the state's appeal of that ruling Wednesday, in a case that could clarify rules for when police can conduct searches without a warrant.


The police contend they entered the apartment because they heard noises they thought might indicate that evidence was being destroyed. King says the noises they heard were people moving around in response to the commotion in the hallway.


And what of the original suspect? The police eventually found him in the apartment on the right. But prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that are not explained in court papers.


A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
 
On remand back to the Kentucky Supreme Court, The USSC stated that no warrant was necessary when the exigent circumstances were not created by the police, the Ky Supreme Court finds again, no exigency existed and suppresses the evidence.

This case is before this Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, Kentucky v. King, __ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011), rev'g King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649 (Ky. 2010), to determine whether exigent circumstances existed when police made a warrantless entry into an apartment occupied by Appellant Hollis King. We conclude that the Commonwealth has failed to show circumstances establishing the imminent destruction of evidence. We therefore reverse the original ruling of the circuit court and remand.
 
On remand back to the Kentucky Supreme Court, The USSC stated that no warrant was necessary when the exigent circumstances were not created by the police, the Ky Supreme Court finds again, no exigency existed and suppresses the evidence.

thank you for bringing this up, it was one of my brother's last posts

although i just about had a heart attack when i saw the posters name
 
Last edited:
Back
Top