According to Kentucky's Supreme Court, the exigent-circumstances exception didn't apply because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would lead the occupants of the apartment to destroy evidence. Overturning that finding, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court that as long as the police officers' behavior was lawful, the fact that it produced an exigent circumstance didn't violate the Constitution. That would be the case, Alito suggested, even if a police officer acted in bad faith in an attempt to evade the warrant requirement.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Supreme Court's Kentucky v. King Resonates Around US
KENTUCKY v. KING is causing a ripple through the country as people figure out just what the decision means for personal privacy in homes and what is left of the Fourth Amendment. See, Forbes Blog, New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.