[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”

[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

[pgyanke]

Hunting... South Park Style

[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

[paul51]

Supreme Court gives police leeway no real restrictions in home searches

[Republic_of_Secession.]

This is insane and an open police state tactic.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

This is insane and an open police state tactic.

[cherry]

this is what we get from Alito?.....

[2ndDivisionVet]

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts

[merryberry]

are we talking Onion here.. Ruth bader ginsburg alone...come on! I for one ain’t falling for it but it was a nice try and a fun thread...

[Artcore]

I hate to say this, and it isn’t a threat, but if this does indeed become the law of the land, there will be many, many more cops being killed while on duty. This is a fact that you can take to the bank.

The public’s response will be: “I thought it was an intruder...” You see, two can play this little game.

This could get very ugly, very quickly.

[Jonty30]

Thin edge of the wedge.

Without a clear-cut warrant, this interpretation can, and will, be used so often and loosely that the 4th amendment is essentially gone.

[robowombat]

True, but this time Ginsburgh is the hero.

[libertarian27]

So, in essence this is house-by-house Marshall Law......

[babygene]

Let’s say this home owner is a 75 year old. And let’s say he pops the cop... The home owner could be forfeiting 5 years of his life. Assume the cop is in his 30ies, he is putting 50 years of his life on the line. The advantage goes to the home owner...

Perhaps they should reconsider this.

[anonsquared]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

They need to amend this a bit. If the cops break in and no drugs are found, then they should be charged with breaking and entering. There should be a “downside” for mistakes.