536 U.S. 635 (2002), 01-8419, Kirk v. Louisiana
|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|
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT
After observing what appeared to be several drug purchases made out of petitioners apartment and stopping one of the buyers on the street out-side petitioners residence, the police entered petitioners 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.
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.
Police officers entered petitioners 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. 000190 (La.App. 11/15/00), 773 So.2d 259. The courts reasoning plainly violates our holding in Payton
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 readingFREE SIGN UP