Reference no: EM132250938

150 words agreed or disagreed

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutions, protects the American people from un-reasonable searches and seizures along with ensuring all warrants must be based on probable cause in order to be executed (Hemmens & Karas, 2011). In other words, police officers need a warrant from a judge in order to enter a dwelling or home and arrest suspects or collect evidence inside (Warrantless Searches, 2011). However, an officer can bypass this rule if exigent circumstance exists at the time of entry (Warrantless, Searches, 2011).

Exigent circumstances exist when officers execute a warrantless search or seizure when an emergency, critical or urgent situation justifies the interruption upon a person's Fourth Amendment rights (Warrantless Searches, 2011) & (Hemmens & Karas, 2011). Cases that involve police officer enforcing criminal law and those that involve public safety are the two types of cases that can fall under exigent circumstances (Warrantless Searches, 2011).

An example of exigent circumstance includes situations where an officer is in a hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect and the suspect runs inside of a residence (Hemmens & Karas, 2011). Other examples include situations where officers are looking for a victim of an attack and or to prevent the looming destruction of evidence (Hemmens & Karas, 2011). However, exigent circumstances have seen some push back, such as in the case of Kirk v. Louisiana (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001).

In the Kirk v. Louisiana case, officers were informed that people were buying drugs from an apartment later identified as Kirk's residence (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). Officer staking out Kirk's residence observed four people come and go from his apartment who were suspected to be buying drugs (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001).

When officers finally searched the fourth person, they found that person to be in possession of cocaine (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). Officers fearing that because of the close proximity of the search, the dealers inside Kirk's residence may began to destroy evidence (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). Thus, the officer felt they had met the exigent circumstance criteria to enter the Kirk's residence without a warrant (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001).

Upon searching Kirk's person, they found a vile of cocaine on his person and subsequently arrested him (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). At the Louisiana State trial court Kirk was convicted of drug dealing (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). However, Kirk appealed, and the case later reached the Louisiana Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Calogero found that that officer did not have exigent circumstance criteria to enter Kirk's residence, making his arrest unconstitutional (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001). The U.S. Supreme Court later came to a per curiam decision where they agreed with Chief Justice Calogero decision (Supreme Court of The United States, 2001)

References:

Hemmens, C. & Karas, S. (2011) Supreme court 2010 point-counterpoint: Kentucky v. King: The Supreme Court invites unwarranted police entry. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(4), 321-327

Supreme Court of The United States. (2001) U.S. Reports: Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635.

Warrantless Searches. (2011) Supreme Court Debates,14(2), 2-12