Kentucky v. King

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Criminal Procedure

563 U.S. 452 (2011)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentExigent CircumstancesWarrantless Searchhome entrywarrantless entrydestruction of evidencepolice-created exigency

Facts

Police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine and followed the suspect toward an apartment building. Entering a breezeway, officers heard a door shut, smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana, and approached the apartment on the left because that was where the smell was coming from. Officer Cobb testified that the officers banged on the door as loudly as they could and announced either "Police, police, police" or "This is the police." As soon as the knocking began, the officers heard people moving inside and believed evidence was being destroyed; they then announced they were going to enter, kicked in the door, entered, and later found drugs and related evidence.

Issue

When police knock on a residence door and announce their presence, and the occupants then appear to be destroying evidence, does the exigent-circumstances exception permit warrantless entry? More specifically, do police impermissibly create the exigency when they do not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment before entering?

Rule

The exigent-circumstances rule applies when police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. A warrantless entry to prevent destruction of evidence is reasonable if the police conduct preceding the exigency is itself reasonable in the Fourth Amendment sense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, officers investigating street-level cocaine sales followed a suspect into a four-unit building. Outside Unit 3, they smelled burnt marijuana, knocked hard, and announced, "Police." Seconds later, they heard rapid footsteps and the sound of a toilet flushing from inside, so they forced the door open without a warrant.

If the occupants move to suppress, which argument gives them the best chance of prevailing on a police-created-exigency theory?

Explanation. The governing rule is objective: police may rely on exigent circumstances unless they created the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. A lawful knock and announcement does not itself violate the Fourth Amendment, and mere causation or foreseeability is not enough. The Court also rejected a rule requiring officers to seek a warrant as soon as probable cause exists.