Legal brief (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) ) Assignment

Legal brief (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) ) - Assignment Exampledenied the accuseds indication to suppress the evidence reason being that exigent chance (the need to prevent the elimination of evidence) light the warrantless entrance. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the determination by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirm the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.Procedural History of the case the King moved to court and filed an appeal to reverse the decision of the Circuit court which was sustain by the Kentucky court of Appeals, which had come to a finding that the officers had a reasonable basis to investigate the marijuana odor and that they aright carried out the investigation by firstly knocking on the door of the apartment and anticipating a response .The court also held that the exigent circumstances vindicated the warrantless entry since there was no response from the apartment when the office rs knocked and one officer heard movement in the apartment which he thought were people hard to destroy evidence. The respondent was sentenced for 11 years imprisonment. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the decision by a lower court. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.Holding and reasoning of the case The court held the opinion that the police should confuse foreseen that their action would have impelled the occupants to purge the evidence. The court determined that the exigent circumstances rule did not apply in this case. The exigent circumstances rule usually applies in circumstances when police fail to create the exigency by engaging themselves in the conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. This amendment (fourth amendment) brings about requirements all searches and seizure ought to be reasonable and the scope of the search should be well set out and a warrant may not be issued unl ess a justifiable cause is established. The trust