Essay --

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _____ (2011) Facts: A number of police officers set up a sting in which there were to be buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex in Lexington, Kentucky. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal from an undercover car in a parking lot not far the from the sale area. After the deal took place, Office Gibbons radioed several other police officers. He instructed them to close in on the suspects. He advised the officers to â€Å"hurry and get there† because the suspect was making his way towards the breezeway of an apartment building. Officers arrived at the parking lot, leaving their vehicles and run to the breezeway. As soon as they enter the breezeway they hear a door shut and can detect a strong odor of marijuana. At the end of the breezeway are two apartments, one located on the left, and one located on the right. The officers were unsure of which apartment the suspect entered. Officer Gibbons advised the officers over the radio that the suspect had ran into the apartment on the right, but the officers didn’t hear this message since they were not at their vehicles. Due to the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment on the left, the officers approach that apartment. The officers banged on the door of the apartment and announced themselves. They could hear people moving inside, and it sounded like things were being moved around inside the apartment. Based on what they heard, officers assumed that drug related evidence was in the process of being destroyed. The officers then announced that they were about to enter the apartment. One of the policemen kicked the door in, and the other officers entered the apartment. Officers located three individuals inside the apartment: Hollis ... ... further held that this conduct was entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and it was evident that there was no other evidence that might show that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so. The Court concluded that Officer Cobb’s statements were made after the exigency arose, therefore it cannot have created the exigency. Conclusion: The Court concluded its holding by finding that the â€Å"exigent circumstances rule† applies in certain cases where the police officer or officers do not â€Å"create the exigency,† but rather, by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court further reasoned that because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights prior to the exigency, the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment.