Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

OK: Sounds of hiding evidence was not exigency of sounds of destruction

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

The state failed to show that exigency required the entry of defendant's property to protect against destruction of seized property. Sounds of hiding evidence is not enough. Burton v. State, 2009 OK CR 10, 2009 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 7 (March 6, 2009): [*P11] In this case, there was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing or trial suggesting that unless the police entered the residence when they did, Burton would either escape or destroy evidence. To the contrary, the record shows that officers were not particularly concerned that evidence might be destroyed. Specifically, the officer in charge at the scene testified at the suppression hearing that the sounds reported coming from inside the house caused him to believe that evidence was only being hidden or concealed...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on March 17, 2009 (boomark / email).