Essay --

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _____ (2011)FactsA number of patrol officers set up a sting in which there were to be buy of crack cocaine outside an flat tire complex in Lexington, Kentucky. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal from an undercover elevator car in a put lot non far the from the bargain area. After the deal took place, Office Gibbons radioed several other police officers. He instructed them to close in on the shadoweds. He advised the officers to hurry and mature 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 reckon a door shut and can detect a upstanding odor of marijuana. At the end of the breezeway are two apartments, one fixed on the left, and one determined 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 didnt hear this message since they were not at their vehicles. out-of-pocket 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 homogeneous things were being moved around inside the apartment. Based on what they heard, officers expect that drug related evidence was in the process of being destroyed. The officers hence 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 take over was entirely reproducible with the Fourth Amendment, and it was evident that there was no other evidence that qualification show that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so.The Court concluded that Officer Cobbs statements were made after the want arose, therefore it cannot have created the speck.ConclusionThe Court concluded its holding by finding that the exigent circumstances rule applies in certain cases where the police officer or officers do not 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.