490 S.W.3d 699
Ky. Ct. App.2016Background
- On March 6, 2013, Hopkinsville officers knocked and announced at Ian Lydon’s apartment seeking a juvenile suspected in an earlier incident.
- Officer DeArmond smelled burning marijuana outside the front door and asked Lydon about it; Lydon denied others were present.
- Before Lydon could respond, DeArmond and an officer in training entered the apartment without a warrant.
- Inside, officers immediately saw and handcuffed the juvenile on the couch and handcuffed Lydon; during a protective sweep they observed marijuana, rolling papers, and a grinder in plain view.
- Lydon later signed a written consent to search while handcuffed; he was cited for Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, moved to suppress the evidence, and pled guilty conditionally after the District Court denied suppression; the Circuit Court affirmed.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals granted review and reversed, holding the warrantless entry was not justified by exigent circumstances and ordering suppression of the fruits of the entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances | Lydon: officers lacked exigency; entry was outside permissible scope of knock-and-talk | Commonwealth: odor of marijuana (and subsequently seeing the juvenile) created exigency to prevent destruction or removal of evidence | Court: No exigent circumstance; odor alone insufficient and officers saw juvenile only after unlawful entry, so entry was unreasonable |
| Whether the protective sweep and items observed should be suppressed | Lydon: sweep and observed items are fruits of illegal entry and must be suppressed | Commonwealth: sweep necessary for officer safety once inside; items were in plain view | Court: Because entry was unlawful, suppression of the fruits of that entry is required; sweep/consent issues rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (exigent circumstances and preservation of evidence exception discussed)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness measured objectively)
- Commonwealth v. McManus, 107 S.W.3d 175 (exigent circumstances for securing dwelling to prevent destruction of evidence)
- King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119 (odor and sounds insufficient alone to create exigency for warrantless entry)
- Quintana v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 753 (knock-and-talk limits: officers must stay where they have legal right to be)
- Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170 (Commonwealth bears burden to justify warrantless entry)
- Guzman v. Commonwealth, 375 S.W.3d 805 (probable cause plus exigency required for warrantless home entry)