536 U.S. 635 (2002), 01-8419, Kirk v. Louisiana

Docket Nº:01
Citation:536 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 2458, 153 L.Ed.2d 599, 70 U.S.L.W. 3787
Party Name:Kirk v. Louisiana
Case Date:June 24, 2002
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 635

536 U.S. 635 (2002)

122 S.Ct. 2458, 153 L.Ed.2d 599, 70 U.S.L.W. 3787

KENNEDY D. KIRK

v.

LOUISIANA

No. 01–8419.

United States Supreme Court

June 24, 2002

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

After observing what appeared to be several drug purchases made out of petitioner’s apartment and stopping one of the buyers on the street out-side petitioner’s residence, the police entered petitioner’s home and arrested and searched him before obtaining an arrest or a search warrant. Petitioner was charged in Louisiana state court with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the warrantless entry, arrest, and search, and petitioner was convicted. In holding that the officers’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they had probable cause to arrest petitioner, the State Court of Appeal declined to decide whether exigent circumstances were present. The State Supreme Court denied review.

Held:

The Court of Appeal erred in finding that exigent circumstances were not required to justify the officers’ conduct. Its reasoning plainly violates the holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, that the firm line at the entrance to a house may not be crossed without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances. Here, police had neither an arrest nor a search warrant. Although the officers testified at the suppression hearing that they took action out of fear that evidence would be destroyed, the Louisiana Court of Appeal did not determine that such exigent circumstances were present.

Certiorari granted; 773 So.2d 259, reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Police officers entered petitioner’s home, where they arrested and searched him. The officers had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. Without deciding whether exigent circumstances had been present, the Louisiana Court of Appeal concluded that the warrantless entry, arrest, and search did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution because there had been probable cause to arrest petitioner. 00–0190 (La.App. 11/15/00), 773 So.2d 259. The court’s reasoning plainly violates our holding in Payton

Page 636

v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980), that[a]bsent exigent circumstances, thefirm line at the entrance to the house . . . may...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP