Kentucky v. King

The Court applied a two part test for the “police created exigency” doctrine whereby the trial court must determine (1) whether exigent circumstances existed; and (2) whether the officers impermissibly created the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment. By merely knocking on the door to the apartment the officers did no more than any private citizen might do. The officers were not responsible for the occupants’ reaction to their presence at the door. The occupants could have chosen to not answer the door instead of destroying evidence. Therefore, because the officers did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment, the exigency justified the warrantless search of the residence.

The exigent circumstances rule justifies a warrantless search when the conduct of the officers preceding the exigency is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and is therefore allowed where the officers do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct (such as announcing they would break the door down if the occupants do not open the door voluntarily) that violates the Fourth Amendment.