Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849

Background

Police conducted a controlled buy of crack outside a Lexington, Kentucky apartment complex; odor of burnt marijuana and sounds inside an apartment were observed as officers approached after entry was anticipated; officers banged on the left apartment door, announced themselves, and subsequently entered the apartment, observing drugs and paraphernalia in plain view; Kentucky courts suppressed the evidence, applying a test that police-created exigency cannot justify warrantless entry if the police’ conduct would reasonably cause destruction of evidence; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the standard for police-created exigency for knock-and-announce entries.
The Kentucky Supreme Court assumed exigent circumstances existed for argument but held that, even then, the police had impermissibly created the exigency by their conduct; it rejected warrantless entry under exigent circumstances.
The district court denied suppression, concluding probable cause existed to investigate the marijuana odor and the police properly knocked and waited for response or consent; the Kentucky appeals court affirmed the denial, upholding the exigent-circumstances justification.
The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, adopting a bright-line rule that police-created exigencies are not valid, unless police actions preceding the exigency were themselves lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court, holding that the exigent-circumstances rule applies when police do not create the exigency by threatening or violating the Fourth Amendment, and that the pre-exigency conduct here was lawful.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police-created exigency can justify a warrantless entry	King argues exigency was created by police conduct	United States argues exigency valid if pre-entry conduct reasonable	Exigent circumstances justified; not created by Fourth Amendment violation prior to entry
What test governs police-created exigency evidence	King supports foreseeability-based test	United States advocates objective reasonableness/foreseeability rejected by Court	Court rejects reasonable foreseeability tests; adopts objective-reasonableness standard based on lawfulness of pre-entry conduct
Did police violate Fourth Amendment prior to entry	King asserts potential Fourth Amendment violation	United States contends conduct lawful	No violation prior to entry; conduct was lawful and not a Fourth Amendment violation
Should the police have sought a warrant after probable cause arose	King would require prompt warrant where probable cause exists	United States may delay warrant for strategic reasons	No required automatic warrant once probable cause exists; no duty to seek warrant immediately in all cases

Key Cases Cited

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view exception requires lawful arrival at the spot)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (exigent circumstances and home-entry limits)
Minces v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (emergency aid exception; general warrant-rule背景)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry threshold generally requires warrants absent exigent circumstances)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (consent issues in searches of home)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (temporary absence of occupant and exigent considerations)
Chambers, 395 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2005) (police-created exigency doctrine considerations in appellate context)
United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003) (time-delay in knock-and-announce circumstances permissible to prevent destruction of evidence)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) (historic restraint on warrantless home intrusion; rebuttal context for Johnson analogy)