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 reason reason being that vociferous circumstances (the need to prevent the elimination of evidence) vindicated the warrantless entrance. The respondent reserved his right to appeal the last by a lower dally. The Court of Appeal of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Circuit court, but the Supreme Court transposed the decision.Procedural History of the case the King travel to court and filed an appeal to reverse the decision of the Circuit court which was affirmed by the Kentucky court of Appeals, which had nonplus to a finding that the officers had a reasonable basis to investigate the marijuana odor and that they properly carried come to the fore 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 officers knocked and iodin officer heard movement in the apartment which he thought were people trying to annihilate 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 have foreseen that their action would have compulsive 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 sensible and the circumstance of the search should be well s et out and a warrant may not be issued unless a justifiable cause is established. The presumption