We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Exigent Circumstances

The United States Supreme Court recently addressed an issue under the exigent circumstance doctrine. When is a warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence unlawful when the officers created the exigency?

Kentucky v. King

Officers were conducting a crack cocaine buy at an apartment complex in Lexington. The UC bought crack cocaine from a suspect. The suspect hurried toward one of the buildings in the complex. The officers got to that location a short time after and saw two apartments. The suspect had to have gone into one of the two apartments. The officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from one of the apartments and decided to go to that door. As it turns out, the suspect went to the other apartment.


The officers went to the door that had the odor of marijuana coming from it and banged on the door. They announced their presence as police officers and as is often the case, heard movement inside the apartment that sounded like the occupants were going to destroy the drugs. The officers then told the occupants they were going to enter and kicked the door.


Three people were detained as the officers conducted a protective sweep. Marijuana and some cocaine was recovered. King was charged with possession of narcotics. A motion to suppress the evidence was heard and the evidence was suppressed.


In Kentucky, as in California, the court held that an exigent circumstance entry is legal provided that the officers do not create their own exigency. Creating the exigency by the police was generally defined as the officers having probable cause to believe there was evidence present, announced presence, and the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the announcement would lead the suspects to destroy the evidence.

The Kentucky court suppressed the evidence even though the officers had a reason to believe the suspects were going to destroy evidence. The Kentucky Court held that the occupants were only attempting to flush the dope because the officers went to the door and announced their presence.


The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and set forth a new rule. The USSC held that an exigent circumstance entry is unlawful only when the officers threaten or announce their intent to enter and that entry would violate the Fourth Amendment.

The USSC narrowed the rule of police creating their own exigency. Merely knocking and announcing your presence is not a threat of an unlawful entry. If officers merely knock and announce their presence and the people inside a residence begin destroying evidence, an exigent circumstance entry will be lawful.


Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor. He is also an instructor for the California District Attorneys’ Association and for Santa Clara University School of Law. Please consult with your own legal counsel for precise guidance before applying any of the techniques or suggestions in this article



  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS