What are the facts?
Lexington police set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine in the parking lot of an apartment complex. After the suspect walked into a breezeway with two apartments, officers lost visual contact and heard a door close. Smelling a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the left apartment, officers approached that door (though the suspect had likely entered the other unit). The officers banged loudly and announced, "Police!" Almost immediately, they heard movement inside—described as shuffling or people moving—which, in their experience, suggested evidence might be destroyed. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers forcibly entered the apartment. Inside, they found the respondent, Hollis King, and others, observed marijuana in plain view, and discovered additional contraband during a protective sweep. The actual drug-sale suspect was later found in the other apartment. The trial court denied King's motion to suppress, finding exigent circumstances. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding the exigency could not justify the entry because the police had created it by knocking and announcing in a way that made destruction of evidence reasonably foreseeable.
What is the legal issue?
Under the Fourth Amendment, may police rely on the exigent circumstances exception to enter a home without a warrant when their preceding conduct (knocking and announcing at the door) foreseeably prompts occupants to destroy evidence, or is such an exigency considered impermissibly "police-created"?
What rule applies?
The exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless entry when officers have probable cause and an objectively reasonable belief that evidence is being destroyed or another exigency exists. Police do not impermissibly create the exigency so long as they do not engage in or threaten to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency. Tests that turn on officers' subjective intent, bad faith, or the reasonable foreseeability that their actions might prompt an exigency are improper. Occupants retain the right to refuse to open the door or to speak with officers during a lawful knock-and-talk.
What did the court hold?
Yes. The exigent circumstances rule applies so long as the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment; merely knocking on a door and announcing their presence does not constitute such unlawful conduct. The Kentucky Supreme Court's contrary standard was rejected, and the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's rule.
What is the reasoning?
1) Exigent circumstances doctrine: The Court reiterated that a warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable, but recognized longstanding exceptions, including when officers reasonably believe evidence is being destroyed. The analysis is objective and focuses on what a reasonable officer would have believed at the time. 2) Police-created exigency: The Court rejected lower-court rules that suppressed evidence when officers acted in bad faith, when it was reasonably foreseeable their conduct would precipitate an exigency, or when they engaged in conduct that was lawful but designed to prompt an exigency. These tests, the Court explained, are inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, are difficult to administer, and would unduly hamper legitimate police practices like knock-and-talk. 3) The governing test: The proper inquiry is whether the police engaged in or threatened conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment before the exigency arose. Lawful actions—such as approaching a residence, knocking on the door, and announcing "police"—do not by themselves render a subsequent exigency police-created. By contrast, an officer's demand for entry under color of authority without a warrant, or a threat to enter unlawfully, would constitute an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation and would bar reliance on exigency. 4) Application: The officers here had probable cause to believe a drug offense was occurring in the apartment (based in part on the strong odor of marijuana) and heard noises suggesting destruction of evidence after a lawful knock-and-announce. Because the officers did not demand entry or threaten an unlawful breach before the exigency arose, their conduct did not create the exigency within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court remanded for the lower court to apply the correct standard to unresolved factual questions, including whether exigent circumstances in fact existed at the moment of entry. 5) Dissent: Justice Ginsburg warned that the majority's approach risks allowing officers to manufacture exigencies by knocking and announcing whenever they suspect drugs, thereby diluting the warrant requirement for homes. The majority responded that occupants remain free to refuse to open the door or to speak and that only an actual or threatened constitutional violation by police will defeat reliance on exigency.
Why is this case significant?
Kentucky v. King is the leading modern statement of the police-created exigency doctrine. It establishes a bright-line, objective rule: warrantless entry under the exigent circumstances exception is permissible unless the police themselves created the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. The case legitimizes common knock-and-talk tactics while preserving core home-privacy protections by prohibiting reliance on exigency where officers overstep constitutional bounds before entry. For students, it provides a clean framework for suppression analyses in drug-destruction and other fast-moving scenarios and clarifies the irrelevance of officer intent or foreseeability to Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
What is the police-created exigency doctrine after Kentucky v. King?
After King, police may rely on exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant if they have probable cause and an objectively reasonable belief that an exigency exists (e.g., imminent destruction of evidence), unless the police created that exigency by engaging in or threatening conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment before the exigency arose. Subjective intent, bad faith, and mere foreseeability that a knock could prompt destruction do not invalidate the entry.
Does knocking and announcing always permit a warrantless entry if officers hear movement inside?
No. Officers still need probable cause and an actual exigency. The sounds must objectively indicate an exigency, such as imminent destruction of evidence, not simply normal household movement. If those requirements are met and the officers' prior conduct was lawful (e.g., a standard knock-and-talk), they may enter without a warrant. If the sounds do not support an exigency, entry is unlawful.
What kinds of police actions would improperly create an exigency?
An exigency is police-created when officers engage in or threaten conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment before the exigency arises—such as demanding entry without a warrant or exigency, announcing that they will enter regardless of consent, or starting to force entry absent lawful grounds. Those actions amount to an actual or threatened constitutional violation and bar reliance on the exigency exception.
What role does the smell of marijuana play in the analysis?
The odor of marijuana can contribute to probable cause to believe that a drug offense is occurring inside the residence. Probable cause alone does not justify entry; exigent circumstances are still required. In King, the smell supported probable cause, and the officers then heard sounds suggesting destruction of evidence, which the lower courts treated as establishing exigency (subject to the Supreme Court's corrected legal standard).
How does King affect an occupant's rights during a knock-and-talk?
Occupants remain free to refuse to open the door or to speak with officers. Refusal does not create an exigency. However, if occupants respond in ways that objectively indicate evidence is being destroyed (e.g., frantic scurrying and flushing sounds) and police have probable cause, officers may enter without a warrant, provided they have not themselves engaged in or threatened an unconstitutional entry.