Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011)
Kentucky v. King is a foundational Fourth Amendment case that reshaped how courts evaluate the "police-created exigency" doctrine in the context of warrantless home entries.
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"?
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.
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.
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.