Kentucky v. King
563 U.S. (2011)
Rule of Law:
The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies when police conduct does not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. So long as police actions prior to the exigency are lawful, a warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable.
Facts:
- Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex.
- After the deal, undercover officers radioed that the suspect was moving quickly toward an apartment building breezeway.
- Uniformed officers, arriving in the breezeway, heard a door shut and detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the apartment on the left.
- The officers, not knowing which apartment the original suspect had entered, approached the left apartment from which the marijuana smell emanated.
- The officers banged on the door of the left apartment as loudly as they could and announced their presence as police.
- Upon banging on the door, officers heard noises from inside the apartment which they believed indicated that the occupants were moving and destroying evidence.
- The officers then kicked in the door and entered the apartment, where they found Hollis King and two other individuals, along with marijuana and cocaine in plain view.
- The original drug-dealing suspect was later located in the apartment on the right.
Procedural Posture:
- Hollis King was charged in Fayette County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- King filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search, which the Circuit Court denied.
- King entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- King appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the state's highest court, which reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the police had impermissibly created the exigency.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exigent circumstances rule, which permits warrantless entry to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, apply when police lawfully knock on a residence and announce their presence, and this conduct causes the occupants to begin destroying evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected tests that focus on the subjective intent of the officers (bad faith) or the reasonable foreseeability of a suspect destroying evidence. Instead, the analysis must be objective, focusing solely on the lawfulness of the police conduct preceding the exigency. Here, the police officers' actions of knocking loudly and announcing their presence were entirely lawful and consistent with what any private citizen might do. Because the police did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency arising, their subsequent warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence was reasonable and permissible.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No. Police should not be permitted to rely on an exigent circumstance that they themselves created when they had ample opportunity to obtain a warrant. The majority's decision provides police a way to routinely bypass the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, particularly in drug cases. The police had probable cause to search the apartment based on the smell of marijuana and could have secured the premises while obtaining a warrant. Instead, by knocking and creating a situation where destruction of evidence was likely, they manufactured the emergency. The urgency must exist when the police arrive on the scene, not be prompted by their own avoidable conduct, to justify dispensing with the core constitutional protection of a warrant for a home search.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'police-created exigency' doctrine by establishing a clear, objective standard focused on the legality of police conduct. It rejects subjective tests like foreseeability or bad faith, which lower courts had used, thereby providing law enforcement with greater latitude during 'knock and talk' investigations. The ruling shifts the legal risk from the police's investigative tactics to the occupant's decision to destroy evidence, strengthening the police's ability to conduct warrantless searches based on suspect-created exigencies so long as the precipitating police action was itself constitutional.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kentucky v. King (2011)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"