They did not smell weed. They thought they did. Until they get their policely hands on it, it is suspicion.
If they found no weed. but found something else like a gun, are they allowed to act?
Remember that the S.Ct. did not decide whether or not the noises inside the apartment properly amounted to exigent circumstances. Its decision was more narrow.
The Ky. S.Ct. had decided that because the noises inside the apartment arose in response to actions of the police (knocking), those noises had to be excluded from consideration, whether or not they amounted to an exigency. What the S.Ct. is saying in this opinion is that because it’s legal for the police to knock on the door, it’s legal to consider the noises behind the door that result from the knock in deciding whether there’s an exigency.
Whether or not those noises actually amounted to an exigency in this case will now be decided by the Kentucky courts in further proceedings. They may well end up agreeing with you that the noises were too ambiguous to justify a warrantless entry.
It’s worth considering too that the SCoKy is going to be taking into account that, per the testimony by the informant, that the officers were in pursuit of personjs known to have committed an illegal sale of drugs and to have been observed going into the entry leading to the two apartments – which to my mind at least alters the question of whether there was a bona fide exigency.
This.
From my albeit very brief reading of the case, the ruling doesn’t seem to be the end of the Fourth Amendment that many here seem to make it out to be. The issue was much more narrow, whether the police acting lawfully (knocking on the apartment door) in creating an “exigency” means they can no longer rely on the exigent circumstances doctrine. SCOTUS, again by a 8-1 opinion, said not necessarily. If the police are actively violating or threatening to violate the 4th Amendment to create the exigency, they cannot claim exigent circumstances. If they are acting lawfully, like knocking on the door, then they may be able to claim exigent circumstances. The test SCOTUS laid out is not a huge blow to the 4th Amendment, it is tailoring a question for courts that deal with this issue to use.
It will be up to the Ky. Sup. Ct. to decide whether there was, in fact, exigent circumstances though.
Understood, but IMHO, the decision is still terrible for that reason. I mean look at the practical aspect: What would you or anyone do if the police are banging on your door?
Well, if you aren’t breaking any law, you go and answer it. But what if you are? You sure as hell are going to scramble around and get rid of whatever it is that is illegal. You don’t know that they don’t have a search warrant. So then they hear you scrambling around, and now that gives them cause to enter your home.
I know, don’t do anything illegal and you won’t have to worry about it, but that turns the 4th amendment on its head. What’s to stop the police from knocking on every door in town now, and once they hear rustling, just break in?
“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.” From the opinion.
When the police officer knocks, you are under no obligation to answer, to let him in, or to answer any questions. And while it may be that the first instinct of criminals upon hearing the knock is to destroy evidence, I don’t think that reaction should be the basis for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
The same things that do that now, the risk of civil suits, disciplinary actions, and the exclusionary rule. I don’t think this case changes much of that. When a case occurs where the police don’t have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to knock on a door, such as in your example, and the court insists that is sufficient exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry, I will join in condemning that ruling. It just strikes me that it’s a bit premature to make that jump from this ruling.
The cops can use the “I thought I smelled marijuana” excuse to do whatever they want. How do you prove he was lying about smelling weed? His word is trusted by the courts.
i don’t like it.
But I thought that a big part of this ruling was that the police can simply knock on a door like anyone else can. No violation for that or any type of cause needed. You could come to my home and knock on my door right now. They could call it a “meet and greet” or whatever.
Again, this ruling did nothing to change that. If you’re convinced that police officers spend their time going around and pretending to smell marijuana in an effort to conduct illegal searches, this ruling won’t affect that one bit.
“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who
knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”). When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elaborate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395 F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occupant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.” From the ruling.
Your door is open to the public, almost anyone is allowed access and can knock on the door. The police, like anyone, are allowed to knock on your door. I simply don’t see how knocking on a door violates the 4th Amendment, and, as far as I can see, this ruling didn’t change the law regarding that at all.
I don’t think this case changed anything about police knocking on your door.
The difference is they can . If they claim they smelled weed, your home rights are gone. Go to court ,and the cop will say he smelled weed. How do you prove he was lying?. He could have just made a mistake.
And that was true before this ruling.
This ruling doesn’t change that.