Brief on Kentucky v. King’s Warrantless Search

Facts

Police may execute a warrantless search in exigent circumstances such as imminent destruction
of evidence. In the case of Kentucky v. King, the police covertly observed the suspect entering
his apartment. On approaching the police realized a strong marijuana odor from the left
apartment. They knocked loudly on the door, and upon hearing a commotion in the house, forced
an entry in order to protect the evidence from being destroyed. They found an assortment of
illegal drugs and later caught the suspect in the apartment to the right.

Issue

The police had seen the suspect enter through the breezeway, hence the justification for entry and
search of the apartment. They nabbed an assortment of drugs in the suspect’s apartment, proof
that a crime had been committed. However, the police had time and reason to secure a search
warrant prior to the entry because the suspect was unaware of the tailing. The police created the
exigency by knocking aggressively on the door.

Holding

Name 2
The court faulted the police warrantless search on account of unreasonably creating exigency.
There was enough time to secure a warrant since the suspect was unaware of an imminent police
raid and search. Exigency should only be applied in emergency situations such as fire, a fleeing
suspect hiding inside, and evidence being destroyed by a suspect. Although the crime justified a
search, the behavior of the suspect did not constitute an emergency.

Reasoning

The police had reasonable cause to search the suspect’s apartment, but they also had time to get a
warrant before conducting the search, thus violated the fourth amendment. The police did not
secure the premises, but instead created the exigency to warrant them a forced entry.