King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, Kentucky v. King, the Court evaluates whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry into Hollis King's apartment.
Police smelled burnt marijuana from the back left apartment after responding to a buy-bust; they suspected the dealer entered a specific breezeway but did not know the exact unit.
Officer Cobb testified to hearing noises inside after knocking and announcing; he believed there was possible destruction of evidence and entered the left apartment.
Initial suppression hearing led to denial of suppression; the circuit court relied on odor and perceived destruction of evidence as exigent circumstances.
On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court previously reversed, holding no justification under hot pursuit and, on remand, evaluating whether exigent circumstances existed.
This Court holds that exigent circumstances did not exist; the warrantless entry was not justified; the conviction is vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did exigent circumstances justify the warrantless entry?	King argued no exigency existed to justify entry.	Commonwealth argued possible destruction of evidence created exigency.	Exigency did not exist; warrantless entry invalid.

Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (remand to address whether police-created exigencies exist)
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1976) (hot pursuit concept in exigent circumstances)
Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1973) (historical context for exigency assessments)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (exigency cannot be based on mere controvertible possibilities)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (probable cause and exigent circumstances required for home entry)
Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2002) (exigency analysis belongs to the Kentucky Supreme Court on remand)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (reasonableness in totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)