Kentucky v. King
United States Supreme Court
563 U.S. 452, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
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 rule did not apply because the police officers’ conduct impermissibly created the exigency that led to entry into the apartment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
