Kentucky v. King
Holding
The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
Plain English Holding
Police may enter a home without a warrant in response to an emergency (including the imminent destruction of evidence) so long as the police do not themselves create the emergency through conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment
Kentucky Supreme Court Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent.
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky
- Brief for Respondent Hollis Deshaun King
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Kentucky
- Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Improvidently Granted
- Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the States of Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner
[##CERT-STAGE##]
Recommended Citation: Kentucky v. King, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/kentucky-v-king/