Case Citation: Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 563 U.S. 452, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011).

Parties: Hollis King v. the State of Kentucky

Facts: Officers of the Lexington, Kentucky Police Department set up a “controlled buy” of crack cocaine, then tracked the person they had watched do so and suspected of selling drugs to an apartment. They smelled marijuana and knocked on the door that seemed appropriate and asked for entry. Before the door was opened they heard noises that sounded like someone trying to get rid of the evidence, so they entered by force. The people inside were smoking marijuana; Hollis King was among them, along with cash, powdered cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. The apartment the suspected drug dealer actually entered turned out to be next door, but this was what they found in the apartment they entered with no warrant. Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 563 U.S. 452, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011).

Procedural History: Hollis King was taken to court in Kentucky, where he entered a conditional guilty plea when he went to …show more content…
The conviction stood.

Comments: Judge Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, holding that “The existence of a genuine emergency depends not only on the state of necessity at the time of the warrantless

Search,” (Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 563 U.S. 452, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 [2011]), but on what the police did to precipitate the situation. Yes, drugs were being used and probably sold in the apartment building, but nothing was visibly happening and there was no emergency before the police set up the controlled buy. The police officers should have obtained a warrant; although they claimed exigency, there was nothing that was stopping them from leaving officers behind to watch and prevent flight of suspects while the other officers went to get a proper warrant and conduct the search legally in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Their case for the exigency doctrine was too