Document: 536 U.S. 635 KIRKv.LOUISIANA. No. 01-8419. Supreme Court of the United States. Decided June 24, 2002. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT APPEAL LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT After observing what appeared to be several drug purchases made out petitioner's apartment and stopping one buyers on street outside residence, police entered home arrested searched him before obtaining an arrest or a search warrant. Petitioner was charged in Louisiana state court with possession cocaine intent distribute. The trial denied his motion suppress evidence obtained during warrantless entry, arrest, search, petitioner convicted. In holding that officers' conduct did not violate Fourth Amendment because they had probable cause petitioner, State Appeal declined decide whether exigent circumstances were present. review. Held: erred finding required justify conduct. Its reasoning plainly violates Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 590, firm line at entrance house may crossed without warrant, absent circumstances. Here, neither nor Although officers testified suppression hearing took action fear would destroyed, determine such Certiorari granted; 773 So. 2d 259, reversed remanded. PER CURIAM. 1 Police home, where him. warrant Without deciding been present, concluded Federal Constitution there petitioner. 00-0190 (La. App. 11/15/00), 259. court's our 590 (1980), "[a]bsent firm" circumstances," ... reasonably warrant." We thus grant petition for writ certiorari reverse Appeal's conclusion actions lawful, circumstances.* 2 On evening March 1998, observed based anonymous citizen complaint sales occurring there. witnessing allowing leave scene, stopped residence. later "[b]ecause stop place within block apartment, [they] feared destroyed ordered entered." 00-0190, 2, 2d, 261. Thus, "[t]hey immediately knocked door defendant, thereto discovered money." Id., 4, 263. sought while detained only this after him, frisked found vial underwear, contraband plain view apartment. 3 Based these events, He filed pretrial by as result their search. hearing, motion. convicted sentenced 15 years hard labor. 4 direct review Appeal, challenged ruling. argued justified entering acknowledged argument: "[Petitioner] makes long argument court, however, "the prove defendant possessed distribute, namely money, but person." Ibid. "[t]he properly incident [, t]he suppress." 5 vote 3. written dissent, Chief Justice Calogero explained: 6 "The States constitution has drawn thus, need both either nonconsensual intrusion into private premises.... inside demonstrated Consequently, defendant's unconstitutional, should have granted." Pet. Cert. 1-2. 7 agree clearly concluding "incident thereto," 263, constitutionally permissible. Payton, we examined violated statute authorized "enter residence force, if necessary, make routine felony arrest." S., 574. determined reasons upholding arrests public do apply invasions privacy home." 576. held a]bsent circumstances, threshold 590. And noted founded cause, well suffice entry. 603. 8 when reason Rather, respondent's own words, "that no entry irrelevant" constitutionality actions. Brief Opposition 2-3. As plain, plus order lawful home. ruling contrary, consequent failure assess present case, Payton. 9 respondent dispute length were, fact, express opinion question, any violation cured "independent source" recovered evidence. 8. judgment officers` conduct, remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 10 It is so ordered. Notes: * also proceedin forma pauperis.

Category: 0