Essay --

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _____ (2011)FactsA number of police officers set up a sting in which there were to be buy of cleft cocaine outside an flatbed complex in Lexington, Kentucky. Undercover incumbent Gibbons watched the deal from an undercover car in a parking stria non far the from the sale area. After the deal took place, Office Gibbons piano tunered some(prenominal) other police officers. He instructed them to close in on the suspects. He advised the officers to hurry and get there because the suspect was making his flair towards the breezeway of an apartment building. Officers arrived at the parking lot, leaving their vehicles and run to the breezeway. As presently as they enter the breezeway they check a door shut and merchant ship detect a strong odor of marijuana. At the end of the breezeway are two apartments, one located on the left, and one located on the right. The officers were unsure of which apartment the suspect entered. Officer Gibbons advis ed the officers over the radio that the suspect had ran into the apartment on the right, but the officers didnt hear this communicate since they were not at their vehicles. Due to the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment on the left, the officers approach that apartment. The officers banged on the door of the apartment and announced themselves. They could hear people moving inner(a), and it sounded like things were being moved around inside the apartment. Based on what they heard, officers assumed that drug related evidence was in the process of being destroyed. The officers then announced that they were about to enter the apartment. mavin of the policemen kicked the door in, and the other officers entered the apartment. Officers located three individuals inside the apartment Hollis ... ... hike up held that this conduct was entirely consistent with the quarter Amendment, and it was evident that there was no other evidence that might show that the officers eithe r enraptured the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so.The motor lodge concluded that Officer Cobbs statements were made after the exigency arose, therefore it cannot have created the exigency.ConclusionThe Court concluded its holding by finding that the exigent circumstances territorial dominion applies in certain cases where the police officer or officers do not create the exigency, but rather, by engaging in or imperil to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court further level-headed that because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the suspects Fourth Amendment rights prior to the exigency, the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment.