Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of Dedra Hatcher’s conditional guilty plea for second-offense possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that the pipe was not subject to seizure under the plain-view exception because the officer lacked lawful access to the residence and the pipe’s incriminating character was not immediately apparent without further investigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless entry into Hatcher's residence was justified by exigent circumstances under the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution.
- Whether the pipe's incriminating character was immediately apparent and supported seizure under the plain-view exception.
- Whether the Commonwealth's theory that Hatcher's son consented to the entry and search was preserved for appellate review.
Holdings
- The warrantless entry was unlawful because the Commonwealth did not demonstrate exigent circumstances, such as a threat of injury or an immediate risk that evidence would be destroyed or concealed.
- The pipe could not be seized under the plain-view exception because its incriminating character was not immediately apparent and Officer Carr lacked probable cause to believe it was contraband when he first observed it from the doorway.
- The Commonwealth's argument that Hatcher's son consented to Officer Carr's entry and search was not preserved for appellate review.
Key quotations
“searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” (126)
“Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.” (127)
“Although the pipe appeared suspicious to Officer Carr, further investigation was required to establish probable cause as to its association with criminal activity, and thus it simply was not immediately incriminating.” (128)
Factual background
Police responded to an anonymous report of an allegedly abandoned minor at Hatcher's residence. After Hatcher's adolescent son opened the door, Officer Carr saw a ceramic pipe on a table and asked to enter the residence; after entering, he picked up the pipe and detected an odor of marijuana. The pipe was legal to purchase, could be used for tobacco, and showed no visible marijuana, residue, or other drug paraphernalia from the doorway.
Procedural history
The trial court denied suppression of a pipe under the plain-view exception and accepted Hatcher's conditional guilty plea to second-offense possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the pipe's incriminating character was not immediately apparent and that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the McCracken Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.