Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Kentucky v. King

United States Supreme Court
563 U.S. 452 (2011)

Kentucky v. King

Facts

During a drug sting operation at a Lexington, Kentucky, apartment complex, police officers mistakenly went to the wrong apartment to arrest a suspect who had purchased crack cocaine. After smelling burnt marijuana emanating from the apartment, the officers knocked loudly on the door and announced their presence. After hearing the apartment’s occupants hurriedly moving around inside and on the belief that evidence might be destroyed, officers kicked down the apartment door and took three individuals into custody, including Hollis King (defendant). King and the others were charged with various drug-related offenses unrelated to the original operation. Prior to trial, King filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized at his apartment, arguing that the contraband was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied King’s motion and held that the “exigent circumstances” rule to the Fourth Amendment justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the apartment. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, noting that the “exigent circumstances” rule did not apply because the police officers’ conduct impermissibly created the exigency which led to entry into the apartment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.