Ky.v.King

Whether the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment?¹⁴

The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.¹⁵

Yes. The officers' conduct preceding the entry was entirely lawful under the Fourth Amendment, as they neither violated its protections nor threatened to do so before the exigency arose.¹⁶ Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal from an unmarked car in a nearby parking lot and radioed uniformed officers to move in on the suspect as he moved quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building. Upon arriving at the breezeway, the uniformed officers detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the apartment on the left.

Officer Steven Cobb banged on the door of that apartment as loud as he could and announced "This is the police" or "Police, police, police." As soon as the officers began banging, they heard people inside moving and sounds consistent with things being moved, which led them to believe drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed. The officers announced they were going to make entry, kicked in the door, and found respondent Hollis King, his girlfriend, and a guest inside the front room. Police later entered the apartment on the right and found the initial suspected drug dealer.

The officers banged on the door and announced their presence in a manner fully consistent with Fourth Amendment standards.¹⁷ The sounds indicating destruction of evidence arose only after this lawful conduct, and the announcement of intent to enter occurred after the exigency had already developed.¹⁸ Because the police did not create the exigency through any actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation, the exigent circumstances rule applies and justifies the warrantless entry.

The exigent circumstances rule applies because the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.¹⁹

Whether the officers created an exigency by banging on the apartment door and announcing their presence before entering?²⁴

Officers do not create an exigency by engaging in lawful conduct such as knocking on the door and announcing their presence, provided they do not threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment.²⁵

No. The officers' banging on the door as loud as they could and announcing their presence was lawful conduct that did not threaten any Fourth Amendment violation.²⁶ Their statement that they would enter was made only after the sounds of evidence destruction had already created the exigency.²⁷

The officers approached the apartment after smelling marijuana and knocked loudly while identifying themselves as police.²⁸ These actions mirrored what any private citizen might do and did not amount to a demand or threat to enter without permission.²⁹ The noises from inside the apartment, which the officers reasonably interpreted as evidence being destroyed, occurred immediately upon the knocking and announcing.³⁰ Only after those sounds arose did the officers state they would make entry.³¹

No evidence in the record shows that the officers made any demand to open the door that could be construed as a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment.³² The announcement of intent to enter came after the exigency had formed, so it could not have manufactured the emergency.³³ Because the officers acted lawfully up to the point the exigency arose, they did not create the exigency that justified the subsequent warrantless entry.³⁴

The officers did not create an exigency by banging on the apartment door and announcing their presence before entering.³⁵