University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

399

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

This segment focuses on the "reasonable foreseeability" of police-created exigent circumstances and the application of the exclusionary rule in cases of Fourth Amendment violations: Reasonable Foreseeability in Police-Created Exigency (Kentucky v. King) • • • Rejection of Foreseeability Test: The Court ruled against a "reasonable foreseeability" test for exigent circumstances, as it would complicate law enforcement’s ability to predict and respond to urgent situations. For instance, when police knock on a door, they cannot always foresee whether the occupants might try to destroy evidence. Objective Standard for Exigent Circumstances: The Court emphasized using objective, not subjective, criteria to assess whether police actions are constitutional. Police-created exigency is valid if officers do not engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, such as threatening entry without a warrant. Legitimacy of Police Strategies: The Court upheld the right of police to attempt conversation or seek voluntary consent to search before securing a warrant. These actions are lawful and sometimes preferable for avoiding the need to execute more intrusive warrants. Exclusionary Rule and Knock-and-Announce Violations (Hudson v. Michigan) • • • Knock-and-Announce Protection Limits: The Hudson case concluded that a knock-and-announce violation does not justify applying the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence. The knock-and-announce rule protects against sudden intrusions that might provoke violence or property damage, but it does not shield evidence from lawful seizure under a valid warrant. Exclusionary Rule as a Last Resort: The exclusionary rule, applied only when benefits outweigh social costs, does not automatically apply to all Fourth Amendment violations. Here, the Court found that deterrence benefits are minimal for knock-and-announce breaches, and suppression could lead to undue litigation and the release of dangerous criminals. Alternative Remedies: Civil suits, enabled by statutes allowing attorney fees for civil rights violations, are viable remedies for knock-and-announce breaches, providing incentives for police compliance without automatically suppressing evidence. Key Legal Principles 1. Exigent Circumstances: Law enforcement can conduct warrantless searches in exigent situations, as long as their prior actions are objectively lawful. Predicting possible exigencies, such as evidence destruction, should not limit police ability to act. 2. Exclusionary Rule Application: The exclusionary rule does not apply to all procedural missteps. For knock-and-announce violations, other deterrents, such as civil remedies, may be more suitable, reflecting the rule’s targeted application to the most egregious violations. This analysis reinforces a cautious approach to the exclusionary rule, advocating for objective standards in Fourth Amendment cases to balance enforcement with constitutional rights.