Justices of U.S. Supreme Court rule in warrantless search case

By Kimberly Atkins The Daily Record Newswire Even though police create an exigency by knocking on a door, the exigent circumstances rule still allows a warrantless search so long as the police conduct is reasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The case stems from police pursuit of drug trafficker who sold cocaine to an undercover informant. When police followed the suspect into an apartment building, they heard an apartment door slam and then smelled burning marijuana from one of the apartments. The officers knocked on the door, and then heard noises that led them to believe that evidence was being destroyed. The officers made a forced entry into the apartment and found the defendant and two others smoking marijuana and in possession of cocaine, cash and drug paraphernalia. The original suspect was later found in another apartment. The defendant was not connected to the original suspect. The defendant moved to suppress all evidence found inside the apartment he occupied, arguing that his arrest and the search of his apartment were illegal. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the smell of marijuana gave the officers probable cause. It also found that the lack of response to the knock on the door and the sound of movement inside the apartment created the requisite exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. But the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because the officers created the exigency by knocking on the door. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and reversed. While police cannot unreasonably create an exigent circumstance for the purpose of obtaining warrantless entry, ''[w]here, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,'' wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the 8-1 ruling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. U.S. Supreme Court. Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272. May 16, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-2905. Published: Thu, May 19, 2011