Kentucky v. King
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|09-1272||S. Ct. of KY||
Jan 12, 2011
|May 16, 2011||8-1||Alito||OT 2010|
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 Justice Alito on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent.
- This week at the Court: In Plain English
- Opinion recap: Court articulates test for exigent circumstances
- Choosing the rule for police-created exigencies in Kentucky v. King
- New curb on Bivens remedy?
- January's arguments: In Plain English
- Argument recap: Choosing the rule for warrantless searches when police create exigent circumstances
- Argument day podcasts: Kentucky v. King
- Argument preview: When does police conduct create exigent circumstances, thereby precluding an entry or search without a warrant?
- Police-created exigent circumstances in Kentucky v. King
Briefs and Documents
- 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
- 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