Facts
- Lexington police arranged a controlled purchase of crack cocaine and followed a suspected dealer into an apartment complex.
- Officers lost sight of the suspect in a breezeway, heard a door close, and saw two nearby apartment doors.
- Smelling marijuana outside one apartment, officers knocked loudly and announced their presence.
- Officers then heard noises they believed indicated imminent destruction of evidence.
- Officers announced they were entering, kicked in the door, and found Hollis Deshaun King and others; drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view, and additional evidence was found in a later search.
- The trial court denied King’s motion to suppress, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry; King entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that even if an exigency existed, the exception did not apply because officers should have foreseen that knocking and announcing would prompt destruction of evidence.
Issues
- Whether the exigent-circumstances exception applies when police, by knocking and announcing their presence, prompt occupants to attempt to destroy evidence.
- What standard governs “police-created exigency” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that exigent-circumstances entries are permitted so long as police did not create the exigency by engaging in, or threatening to engage in, conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court rejected tests turning on foreseeability, “manufacture,” bad faith, or officers’ subjective intent.
- Assuming an exigency existed, the Court concluded the officers’ pre-entry conduct was lawful and did not involve any Fourth Amendment violation or threat of one; therefore the exigent-circumstances doctrine was not barred on a police-created-exigency theory.
Legal Principles
- Warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable, but may be reasonable when exigencies make obtaining a warrant impracticable, including imminent destruction of evidence.
- Police impermissibly “create” an exigency only by engaging in, or threatening to engage in, conduct that independently violates the Fourth Amendment.
- Lawful investigative steps—even if they predictably lead occupants to destroy evidence—do not negate reliance on exigent circumstances.
- Fourth Amendment reasonableness generally applies an objective standard rather than inquiries into officers’ subjective motivations.
- Officers may approach a residence and knock and announce their presence without a warrant, consistent with the social license allowing ordinary visitors to do the same.
Conclusion
The Court held that the exigent-circumstances exception remains available when officers respond to apparent destruction of evidence after a knock-and-announce, unless the officers created the exigency through actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violations; it rejected foreseeability-based limits and remanded for further proceedings.