Diversity in Criminal Justice - Case Study Example

Diversity in Criminal Justice School: Synopsis Case brief Kentucky v. King was a legal dispute, where the final decision was made by the US Supreme Court, on a holding of 8 to 1. The final determination of the Supreme Court judges was that, the cases in which the police conduct searches without warrants – but which are not police-created exigent situations do not amount to Fourth Amendment violations (O’Connor, 2011). The circumstances of the case included that, secret police officers bought illegal drugs from suspected criminals, and then trailed the suspect to their destination. After trailing the suspects, the police were called-in to arrest them and search the house; the police were not able to trace the house of the suspect, but went ahead after entering the complex. After a failed radio communication that the suspect had entered the apartment to the right, the police officers sensed the smell of marijuana coming from the left apartment, and upon sensing the smell coming from the left apartment, they knocked and announced their intention to search the house. After making their announcement, they heard noises, which felt like those of people destroying the evidence of marijuana among others, and that prompted their forced entry into the house (O’Connor, 2011). After gaining entry into King’s house, they found him smoking Indian hemp; inside the house, the police also found cocaine in the house. The police searched the house further and found more illegal drugs and things related to drugs use and possible drug trafficking. During the trial of the suspects arrested at the wrongfully identified house – where the suspect had entered – the trial defendant attempted a motion to suppress the evidence collected during the warrantless search made at the suspects’ apartment (O’Connor, 2011). The motion to suppress the evidence, on the basis that the officers had violated the 4th amendment was rejected at lower courts, but was upheld by the Kentucky Supreme Court. However, after the case arrived at the US Supreme Court, the previous ruling was reversed, and it maintained that an unwarranted search conducted during exigent circumstances did not amount to the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The condition for the position maintained was that, a warrantless search did not violate the fourth amendment, as long as the police were not responsible for the creation of the exigency, after violating or threatening the fourth amendment (Levick, 2012). Interpretation of the court’s judgment and the conditions for exigencies The basis of the exigent circumstances idea is that, in the case there is an emergency, the police can do a search of the suspect’s premises without a warrant. The circumstances warranting that the police do not secure a warrant to search include the case where the suspect is in the process of destroying the evidence and where the police are in the process of pursuing a suspect. The justification is that the time taken to secure a warrant can allow the suspects to destroy the evidence in question or to escape arrest (Levick, 2012). In applying the exigency-circumstances exception, there is a regard of whether the police triggered or created the given circumstances. The position maintained, in relation to police-created exigencies is that the police cannot rely on the exigency circumstances that they have created, when justifying a search without securing a warrant. In Kentucky v. King, the question of contention is highly narrow; in relation to the fact that the conduct of the police involved could have created the exigency circumstances in question (O’Connor, 2011). In Support of this position, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the situation did not amount to an exigency, noting that the entry made was based on the incorrect identification of the destination of the suspect or the smell of marijuana. In essence, challenging the position that the noises heard from the house were those of the evidence of drugs being destroyed was exigent in nature. However, the court also held that they had created the exigent situation after knocking and announcing their presence (O’Connor, 2011). Secondly, the “hot pursuit” nature of a case, which could qualify the situation to be an exigent circumstance, was not applicable. For that reason, the previous decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court was determined, through the evaluation of the ways, in which they could test whether the police had created the exigent circumstances (Bradley, 2011). Additionally, in the instance that the decision of the lower court was to be upheld – or reversing it was the option taken – it would be reverted to the Kentucky Supreme Court. In such a case, the Kentucky Supreme Court would face the option of considering whether the noise heard by the police officers was sufficient, to be regarded the exigent circumstances, in justifying the behaviors of the police. Cultural roles and issues touched by the case From the dealings and the behaviors of the police as well as the courts, it is evident that cultural roles had changed (were in the process of changing) and that was among the core reasons for the issues related to the case. Firstly, according to the directives of the fourth Amendment of American constitution, the “knock and talk” behavior of the police was totally unacceptable within the parameters of police culture and that of the society as a whole (Bradley, 2011). The justification for this position is the fact that, the action would have remained within the confines of the law, noting that they did not trigger the incidence of the exigent circumstances. However, probably due to the cultural views, behaviors and the patterns in force at the time, the Department of Justice adopted a wider position – maintaining that the police can search without a warrant. They can only do that, where there is a probable cause to search fast, but their conduct should not trigger the exigent circumstances. The cultural issue that stands out from the case includes that none of the tests could be applied substantially. Firstly, the Kentucky authorities were not accurate in their position that the behavior of the police was merely “knock and talk”. The position implies that the occupants of the apartment were at liberty to open the door and invite the police or fail to do so. Also, even in a case of disregarding the demands made by the police, the behavior amounted to more than “knock and talk”, as the officers banged on the door of the defendant’s house and shouted that they wanted to enter the house. Further, taking into account, the demands made by the police, it becomes evident that they did not meet the cultural expectations of the society. More precisely, the police did not behave in the manner that the society would expect them to, taking into account that they reported a “knock and talk” situation. Secondly, the argument made by the DOJ, that the position and the test – emphasizing that any lawful conduct was permitted – would fit the cultural constructions of social and legal justice. Further, the arguments made were not clear, on whether the testing of the lawfulness of the behavior of the police was based on the provisions of the Fourth amendment, constitutional law in general, state law, federal law or international law (Levick, 2012). In reality, the rule that any lawful behavior by the police would be admissible, provided that it did not create the exigent circumstances in question, appears arbitrary for coverage under the exemption. For example, from the point of view of the insider, hearing the announcement will trigger them to move from one place to the other, trying to put their house in order, before the police who could be in possession of a search or an arrest warrant enter forcefully. In that case, the account of the noises heard by the police, and the account that King was still smoking Indian hemp when they entered, appears somehow conflicting with the account of the police (O’Connor, 2011). From the point of view of the courts, maintaining that the behavior of the police did not amount to police-created exigent circumstances goes beyond the conception of society, or any reasonable person. This is especially the case, noting that their demands would compel King or other people in the house to move around and about, while preparing to open the door or behave in another way. Firstly, it is possible that the police officers acted in bad faith, noting that they would have knocked and shouted their presence in order to justify their forceful entry, which would amount to a violation of the 4th amendment (O’Connor, 2011). For example, when questioning the justification of the behavior leads to the conclusion that, without the proper knowledge of the apartment where the suspect had entered, it was not allowable to make a forceful entry into the house. Secondly, due to the compelling justification that the smoke of Indian hemp was coming from the door of King’s house, the reasonable foreseeability doctrine would have justified a forceful entry by the police – even without announcing their presence, but the courts paid little attention to that as well. Based on the consideration of the standard investigative procedures doctrine, the court maintained that there was no clear procedure that the police would use for the given case. However, this is not fully factual, noting that the identification of the house where the suspect had entered would most probably be a critical question for any law enforcement officer, but little attention was paid to the issue (Bradley, 2011). Additionally, the court appeared not to take into account, the fact that the police officers made their entry sound inevitable, which is illegal in itself. However, the court rejected this doctrine on the basis that the impression is evident from subtleties like the forcefulness of knocking and the tone of voice. More importantly, it is important to note that the tone of the police officers and their knocking signaling the inevitability of their entry, and the court paid little attention to this infringement of the 4th amendment. Further questions regarding the conduct and the decisions of the courts would be related to the freedom of movement of the three people cornered at King’s house, noting that their freedom to move was restricted. During the time of the arrest, there was also the case where one of the individuals arrested requested to exercise his right to speak to a lawyer (O’Connor, 2011). However, the police paid little attention to the request, and the courts also appeared not to take it into much account, irrespective of the fact that it amounted to the violation of the Sixth Amendment. During the hearing for the case, little attention was offered to the question of the person that had been smoking bhang during the time of arrest, and that was evident from the fact that the police arrested the three people in the house. More importantly, this side of the conduct of the police was not questioned by the courts, during the hearings, and that also served as evidence that the juries handling the case were not fully impartial. The cultural diversity issue that impacted the relationship agencies and offenders The cultural diversity issue of the case was evident from the position held by the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the US Supreme court. The former maintained that the police had created the exigent circumstances that compelled them to force their entry into the suspect’s house, but the latter maintained that the evidence was admissible, taking into account that the exigent circumstances were not created by the police (O’Connor, 2011). The issue related to cultural diversity, which is demonstrated by the position maintained by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was that the case was not a hot pursuit for suspects. A case where the police were in the hot pursuit of suspects would allow them to do a warrantless search. Also, the court maintained that the tactics used by the police created the exigent circumstances leading to the collection of the evidence used against King and the other suspects (O’Connor, 2011). Apart from the fact that the police could have created the exigent circumstances that would back the evidence they collected at the house of the suspects, the US Supreme Court did not take into account the fact that the house searched by police was not the intended one. Further, the court did not take into account that the circumstances surrounding the collection of the evidence, including that the police made it apparent that they would inevitably enter the suspect’s house, among other contingencies (O’Connor, 2011). The impacts of the issue evident among the two Supreme Courts influenced the relationships maintained by the agencies and the offenders. The impacts included that the Supreme Court disregarded the plea by the offenders that the police had manipulated the circumstances, in order to enter and search the offender’s house. The outcomes of the impact was that the offenders were forced to admit and accept that the police can hide behind the exigent circumstances exception, whenever they found it easier to search without a warrant, irrespective of the pleas of the offenders. Further, the relationship between the courts and the offenders implied that little attention was offered to the fact that the facts of the case were still disputable in a big way, which warranted a much sober interpretation of the case (O’Connor, 2011). However, the case of the lower court showed a much different approach to the case, noting that it paid attention to the fact that the police had manipulated the situation. The manipulation of the situation was probably intended at searching the house of the offenders, under the justification of the exigency circumstances exception (Bradley, 2011). The differences between the holdings and the treatment of the case were that the two levels of courts considered the civil rights of the offenders differently, and also took into account that the actions of the courts were of different weight. A Christian worldview to the impact of cultural diversity issue From a Christian point of view, the cultural diversity issue demonstrated by the positions taken by the two courts evidenced the fact that the courts could allow the police to engage in unnecessary and intrusive actions (Levick, 2012). More important, the intrusive actions of the police hold the potential of infringing the constitutionally protected rights of citizens. For example, from the case of King and his friends, it was possible that the police would impound on the wrong people, especially in the case that the smell of Indian hemp was only coming from the surroundings of their house. This, together with the fact that the police entered the wrong house, emphasizes the fact that warrantless searches are more likely to subject law abiding citizens to unnecessary searches, which may compromise their lives in different ways. Further, after the police gain entry to the house of a suspect wrongfully, the family in question is likely to be left with the experiences of insecurity. Further, the fact that the suspects were not protected from warrantless searches gives proof that the issue is likely to impact the lives of many people unnecessarily (Levick, 2012). For example, in the case that the unwarranted search done at King’s house was staged at an obedient citizen’s home, it would most probably compromise the life and the reputation of the family, among its neighbours and society. For that reason, it is important to emphasize the fact that all searches should be done after the police have secured warrants of arrest. More important, it is necessary for policy makers and law enforcement agencies to act and make arrests and searches, only on the basis of factual intelligence and information. More importantly, it is necessary to take into account that the issue portrayed a gap in the administration of justice, and that prompts the courts, law enforcement and the general society to approach such issues with more care (Levick, 2012). Conclusion Kentucky v. King (2011) was a legal dispute that ended with the decision that a warrantless entry and search can be used, in the cases that the police sense that the evidence needed could be destroyed by the offenders. The two bases were used by the police to justify their forceful entry at King’s house, irrespective of the fact that they did not know that the house searched was not that of the suspect being pursued. The cultural roles and the issues touched by the case included the inconsideration of the offenders’ side of the issue, during the hearing of the case at the Supreme Court level. The cultural diversity issue that impacted the relationship between agencies and offenders in a major way was the difference in the treatment of the case, among the two different courts. The impacts on the relationship included that the offenders’ side was sidelined by the court, and that compelled them to lose faith in the courts. From a Christian point of view, it is clearly evident that allowing the police to do warrantless searches is unnecessary and is likely to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. References Bradley, C. (2011). "Kentucky v. King: The Scope of the Exigent Circumstances Exception". Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 183. Doyle, C. (2011). "Warrantless, Police-Triggered Exigent Searches: Kentucky v. King in the Supreme Court". CRS Report for Congress No. R41871. Levick, R. (2012). "‘Knock, Listen, then Break The Door Down’? The Police-Created Exigency Doctrine after Kentucky v. King". University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161 (1), 1–19. O’Connor, M. L. (2011). "Kentucky v. King: The Police do not Create Exigent Circumstances by Lawfully Knocking on the Door to a Home and Announcing ‘Police’". Criminal Justice Studies 24 (4), 329–336. Read More