Citation network
Kentucky Vs. King
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Kentucky V. KingSearch
-
violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the spot from which the observation of the evidence is made, see Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
seek consent-based encounters if they are lawfully present in the place where the consensual encounter occurs, see INS v. DelgadoSearch
-
Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Kentucky v. KingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Opinion of the Court Kentucky V. KingSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-1272 Kentucky, Petitioner V. HollisSearch
-
cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. See Payton v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 398 , 403 (2006) (quoting Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
see also Michigan v. FisherSearch
-
officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. See United States v. SantanaSearch
-
see also Georgia v. RandolphSearch
-
by the conduct of the police. See, e.g., United States v. ChambersSearch
-
United States v. GouldSearch
-
United States v. DuchiSearch
-
B Some lower courts have adopted a rule that is similar to the one that we recognize today. See United States v. MacDonaldSearch
-
State v. RobinsonSearch
-
United States v. SoceySearch
-
United States v. RengifoSearch
-
Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
see also, e.g., United States v. MowattSearch
-
think that a short and simple conversation may obviate the need to apply for and execute a warrant. See Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
some force. A forceful knock may be necessary to alert the occupants that someone is at the door. Cf. United States v. BanksSearch
-
is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. RoyerSearch
-
about whether an exigency actually existed is better addressed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on remand. See Kirk v. LouisianaSearch
-
s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Villamonte-MarquezSearch
-
of evidence may also justify dispensing with Fourth Amendment requirements in other contexts. See, e.g., Richards v. WisconsinSearch
-
cf. United States v. BanksSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
warrantless search of the room as a valid search incident to a lawful arrest. See Brief for United States in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Kentucky V. KingSearch
-
if the main rule is to remain hardy. United States v. UnitedSearch
-
see Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
or serious injury, or danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed, or that a suspect will escape. Brigham City v. StuartSearch
-
bear heightened scrutiny, Payton v. NewSearch
-
see also Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Kentucky, Petitioner V. HollisSearch
-
See Payton v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial