Kentucky v. King

Facts

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. An undercover officer watched the sale from an unmarked car, then radioed uniformed officers to move in on the suspect, who was heading quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building. As the uniformed officers entered the breezeway, they heard a door shut and smelled a very strong odor of burnt marijuana. Two apartments sat at the end of the breezeway, and the officers did not know which one the suspect had entered. The undercover officer had radioed that the suspect ran into the apartment on the right, but the uniformed officers did not hear it. Because they smelled marijuana coming from the apartment on the left, they went to that door. They banged on it as loudly as they could and announced that they were police. Officer Cobb testified that they then heard people moving inside and that it sounded as though things were being moved. The officers believed drug evidence was about to be destroyed. They announced that they were going to make entry, and Cobb kicked in the door. Inside they found Hollis King, his girlfriend, and a guest smoking marijuana. A protective sweep turned up marijuana and powder cocaine in plain view, and a later search turned up crack cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Police later entered the apartment on the right and found the suspected dealer.

Issues

1. Does the exigent circumstances rule permit a warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence when the police, by knocking on a door and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to try to destroy evidence?
2. Under what circumstances do police impermissibly create an exigency, so that they cannot rely on it to justify a warrantless search of a home?

Holding

Where the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable. Assuming an exigency existed, the officers here did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment before it arose, so it justified the warrantless search.