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.

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



  • 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
  • Your class 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
  • 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
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • The information that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly organized and very easy to digest.

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

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Your class 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
  • ...Provides 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
  • Your instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda