05-17-2011, 08:05 PM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf
KENTUCKY v. KING
The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies.
16.
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.
|
In other words, they forfeited their own constitutional rights by their own actions. Had there not been the attempt to destroy evidence, any evidence would have been gained by an unlawful search and could be ruled not admissible in any proceeding against them.
The ruling was 8 -1 BTW
|
|
|