300 P.3d 72
Kan.2013Background
- Campbell challenged a warrantless entry into his apartment, claiming no exigent circumstances justified it and that evidence seized in plain view should be suppressed.
- Officer Nible testified he forced entry after perceiving potential danger when Campbell opened the door with a handgun visible, creating an exigency.
- The district court ruled the entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that plain view and consent justified seizure.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, but ambiguously suggested Campbell had not challenged the exigency and limited review to plain view.
- This court granted review to determine whether Campbell preserved the exigency argument and whether police-created exigency bars the warrantless entry.
- The court holds that Campbell did preserve the exigency claim and that police-created exigency invalidates the entry and taints evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Campbell preserve the exigency claim? | Campbell argued below that Nible created the exigency. | State contends Campbell failed to raise exigency on appeal. | Yes; preservation established. |
| Does police-created exigency bar the entry and taint evidence? | Nible’s peephole coverage and concealment created the exigency. | Exigency could justify entry if reasonable for officer safety. | Exigency not allowed; entry unlawful; evidence tainted. |
| Does King govern police-created exigency analysis here? | King limits police-created exigency and supports suppression. | King supports officer safety-based entry in exigent circumstances. | King applied; exigency deemed unreasonably created; suppression required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (police-created exigency framework; reasonableness of police conduct assessed)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (front-porch protection; officer conduct at home periphery)
- United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (peephole coverage; cited as contrast to point supportive of lawfulness)
- State v. Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302 (2010) (police-created exigency doctrine; admissibility under ruse entries)
- State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214 (2004) (exigent circumstances via odor and emergency circumstances)