{"id":4714,"date":"2010-10-17T09:15:13","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T16:25:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-09-28T16:25:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4714","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Cert grant: <em>Kentucky v. King:<\/em> police created exigency"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUS granted cert today in Kentucky v. King, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/Search.aspx?FileName=\/docketfiles\/09-1272.htm\">09-1272<\/a> (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/kentucky-v-king\/\">SCOTUSBlog here<\/a> with links to the petition and response), on a question of police created exigency. The Kentucky Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/09-1272_scky.pdf\">here<\/a>, from January 10. This is the first Fourth Amendment case of the coming term.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/qp\/09-01272qp.pdf\">Question presented<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of  the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment. The officers knocked on the door. They then heard noises which indicated that physical evidence was being destroyed. The officers entered the apartment and found large quantities of drugs. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that this evidence should have been suppressed, ruling that (1) the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the officers created the exigency by knocking on the door, and (2) the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the suspect was not aware he was being pursued. &#8230; When does lawful police action impermissibly &#8220;create&#8221; exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(There was a second question the court did not accept.)<\/p>\n<p>This is the first case of the term, and one would hope the last. SCOTUS cert grants on a state or government petition are usually a bad sign, but <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4755468061403609564&amp;q=u.s.%2Bv.%2Bgrote&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20002\">Gant<\/a> went up on the state&#8217;s petition. And, we know that the <a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=d_c_cir_warrant_needed_for_gps_surveilla&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">Maynard GPS case<\/a> is going up with the Government as the petitioner since there is a conflict in the Circuits. State court conflicts to date are based on state constitutional grounds since no state court apparently had confidence in SCOTUS on the question, but I don&#8217;t know. I still have hope here because Maynard was on the mark, and written by a conservative judge. The betting money is on a cert grant with about 100 amicus briefs being filed.<\/p>\n<p>[This case will not be posted on the side bar for a few days because I don&#8217;t have access to my computer with the software to do so.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4714\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}