Kentucky v. King
Citation: 563 U.S. 452 (2011)
Facts
Police officers knocked on an apartment door after smelling marijuana. Upon hearing movement inside — which they interpreted as evidence being destroyed — they announced they were police and entered without a warrant. King argued the exigent circumstances were “police-created.”
Issue
Does the exigent circumstances exception apply when police create the exigency by knocking and announcing their presence, thereby prompting the occupant to destroy evidence?
Holding
Yes, in most circumstances. Police do not create an impermissible exigency simply by approaching and knocking on a door (a lawful act), even if that action causes suspects to begin destroying evidence. The test is whether the police engaged in deliberate bad faith or improper conduct designed to create the exigency.
Rule
Police-created exigency: Exigent circumstances are valid even if police conduct caused the occupants to respond in a way that created the exigency, so long as the police did not engage in or threaten Fourth Amendment violations to induce the exigency. The test: if police conduct was a lawful action (knocking and announcing), the resulting exigency is not “manufactured.”
Police create an impermissible exigency only if they deliberately tried to pressure the suspect to make evidence destruction seem imminent — e.g., by threatening to enter without a warrant.
Significance
- Significantly broadened the police-created exigency exception
- Prior circuits required that police must have probable cause plus impracticability of getting a warrant before knocking; King eliminated that requirement
- Practical effect: police can knock on a door, hear movement, and use that as exigent circumstances for warrantless entry
- Scalia and Ginsburg dissented, arguing the rule effectively removes the warrant requirement for anyone police suspect has drugs