Supreme Court gives police leeway in home searches

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 17, 2011 | David G. Savage

[UniqueViews]

Officers may break in if they hear sounds and suspect that evidence is being destroyed, the justices say in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ginsburg dissents.

The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

[UniqueViews]

Not quite as open ended, as some portray this.

[Celtic Cross]

Still too open ended. This can be so easily abused.

Any time the cops screw up they'll just say "I thought evidence was being destroyed."

[mylife]

“We had to use the concussion grenades, we thought we heard a kitten mewing”

[max americana]

>Any time the cops screw up they’ll just say “I thought evidence was being destroyed.”<

Yup..

PERP: “I have my hands up officer, I’m coming ou—”
POLICE: (smashing door), “Sorry..I thought you were destroying evidence, we didn’t hear the last sentence..”

[DariusBane]

Just yesterday I was thinking to myself: “You know, I really think the Police need more power.”

My God... 8-1. we are so screwed.

[LibFreeOrDie]

For once, I agree with Ginsberg. WTF were the others Supremes thinking?

I haven’t been an opponent of “The War On Drugs” but if the Supremes think it’s OK for cops to break down doors at a whiff of marijuana, I’m going to have to reconsider.

[JRandomFreeper]

Legitimate governments exist on the sufferage of the populace.

If we really get tired of this crap? It WILL stop. From judges to foot-soldiers.

We get the government we allow.

/johnny

[UniqueViews]

“if the Supremes think it’s OK for cops to break down doors at a whiff of marijuana”...

I guess you are right — and they didn’t even break down the door of the drug dealer... IOW, they could be breaking into the wrong apartment.

[pgyanke]

Hunting... South Park Style

[samtheman]

I haven’t been an opponent of “The War On Drugs” but if the Supremes think it’s OK for cops to break down doors at a whiff of marijuana, I’m going to have to reconsider.

I agree with you exactly. This is going too far. It's enough to make me think of saying: enough.

[samtheman]

Please explain to me how you think it’s not quite so open ended.

[Palter]

Kentucky v. King

---

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
09-1272	Supreme Court of Kentucky	Jan 12, 2011 Tr.Aud.	May 16, 2011	8-1	Alito	OT 2010

---

Holding: The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment: KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT REVERSED, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• New curb on Bivens remedy?
• January's arguments: In Plain English
• Argument recap: Choosing the rule for warrantless searches when police create exigent circumstances
• Argument day podcasts: Kentucky v. King
• Argument preview: When does police conduct create exigent circumstances, thereby precluding an entry or search without a warrant?
• Police-created exigent circumstances in Kentucky v. King

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky
• Brief for Respondent Hollis Deshaun King
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky
• Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Improvidently Granted
• Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the States of Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kentucky)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of states
• Petitioner's reply

[mylife]

So there is a knock on the door. You taking a crap.
You yell “just a minute” and flush....

And they bust down the door with guns drawn.

Seems reasonable.

I got nothin to hide /s

[runninglips]

Me too, I think I will give the PTB a scowling of a lifetime.

[UniqueViews]

I am rethinking my original comment. Initially I thought that if they knew there were drugs in there and were chasing some drug dealer, it may be OK, but in rereading the article and some of the comments, I am coming around, that it is indeed too much power for the police and the SCOTUS is wrong in ruling this legal.

[jospehm20]

I have been against it for years now and no, I do not do any drugs. The WOD gave us forfieture laws, no knock raids, workplace urinalysis and now this. Isn’t what the government is doing to our God given rights in the name of the WOD peachy? I do not think it is worth the freedoms we have lost, much less the money it costs us.

[samtheman]

It is scary, isn’t it. As someone pointed out, this overrules one of the freedoms in the Magna Carta. Which means that medieval Englishmen had more rights than we do.

[jospehm20]

They also paid less tax. I read somewhere that the church limited what the Lord could take from a serf at 25%.

[merryberry]

AIN;T NO ONE COMING IN MY HOUSE WITHOUT AN INVITATION OR A WARRANT.NEVER HAD A WARRANT BEFORE AND DONT EXPECT TO HAVE ONE IN THE FUTURE SO NO ONE COMING IN MY HOUSE WITHOUT AN INVITATION

[Moonman62]

For once, I agree with Ginsberg. WTF were the others Supremes thinking?

Why don't you read the actual ruling rather than going by a selective summary in a liberal newspaper?