{"id":7045,"date":"2013-03-09T09:59:42","date_gmt":"2012-04-28T16:42:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-04-28T16:42:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7045","title":{"rendered":"KY: <em>Kentucky v. King<\/em> on remand: state still can&#8217;t show exigency"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On remand from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/09-1272.pdf\">Kentucky v. King<\/a>, the Kentucky Supreme Court finds no exigency and suppresses again. The state failed in its burden to show exigency. <a href=\"http:\/\/opinions.kycourts.net\/sc\/2008-SC-000274-DG.pdf\">King v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 386 S.W.3d 119 (Ky. 2012), petition for <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/Search.aspx?FileName=\/docketfiles\/12-140.htm\">cert. filed July 25, 2012<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This case is before this Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/09-1272.pdf\">Kentucky v. King<\/a>, __ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011), rev&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>Turning to the question at hand, we conclude that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. During the suppression hearing, Officer Cobb repeatedly referred to the &#8220;possible&#8221; destruction of evidence. He stated that he heard people moving inside the apartment, and that this was &#8220;the same kind of movements we&#8217;ve heard inside&#8221; when other suspects have destroyed evidence. Cobb never articulated the specific sounds he heard which led him to believe that evidence was about to be destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, the sounds as described at the suppression hearing were indistinguishable from ordinary household sounds, and were consistent with the natural and reasonable result of a knock on the door. Nothing in the record suggests that the sounds officers heard were anything more than the occupants preparing to answer the door.<\/p>\n<p>The police officers&#8217; subjective belief that evidence was being (or about to be) destroyed is not supported by the record, and this Court cannot conclude that the belief was objectively reasonable. &#8220;[N]o exigency is created simply because there is probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed[.]&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6213241192880803973&amp;q=466+U.S.+740&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Welsh v. Wisconsin<\/a>, 466 U.S. 740, 753 (1984) (citing <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14936388408511643149&amp;q=445+U.S.+573&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Payton<\/a>, 445 U.S. 573). Exigent circumstances do not deal with mere possibilities, and the Commonwealth must show something more than a possibility that evidence is being destroyed to defeat the presumption of an unreasonable search and seizure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7045\">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-7045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}