kentucky
king
argued
january
decided
may
police
officers
lexington
kentucky
followed
suspected
drug
dealer
apartment
complex
smelled
marijuana
outside
apartment
door
knocked
loudly
announced
presence
soon
officers
began
knocking
heard
noises
coming
apartment
officers
believed
noises
consistent
destruction
evidence
officers
announced
intent
enter
apartment
kicked
door
found
respondent
others
saw
drugs
plain
view
protective
sweep
apartment
found
additional
evidence
subsequent
search
circuit
denied
respondent
motion
suppress
evidence
holding
exigent
circumstances
need
prevent
destruction
evidence
justified
warrantless
entry
respondent
entered
conditional
guilty
plea
reserving
right
appeal
suppression
ruling
kentucky
appeals
affirmed
kentucky
reversed
assumed
exigent
circumstances
existed
nonetheless
invalidated
search
exigent
circumstances
rule
apply
held
police
foreseen
conduct
prompt
occupants
attempt
destroy
evidence
held
exigent
circumstances
rule
applies
police
create
exigency
engaging
threatening
engage
conduct
violates
fourth
amendment
pp
fourth
amendment
expressly
imposes
two
requirements
searches
seizures
must
reasonable
warrant
may
issued
unless
probable
cause
properly
established
scope
authorized
search
set
particularity
although
seizures
inside
home
without
warrant
presumptively
unreasonable
brigham
city
stuart
presumption
may
overcome
exigencies
make
needs
law
enforcement
compelling
warrantless
search
objectively
reasonable
fourth
amendment
mincey
arizona
one
exigency
need
prevent
imminent
destruction
evidence
brigham
city
supra
pp
exigency
doctrine
lower
courts
developed
exception
exigent
circumstances
rule
exigent
circumstances
justify
warrantless
search
exigency
created
manufactured
conduct
police
lower
courts
agreed
however
test
determining
police
impermissibly
create
exigency
pp
proper
test
follows
principle
permits
warrantless
searches
warrantless
searches
allowed
circumstances
make
reasonable
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
dispense
warrant
requirement
thus
warrantless
entry
based
exigent
circumstances
reasonable
police
create
exigency
engaging
threatening
engage
conduct
violating
fourth
amendment
similar
approach
taken
cases
involving
warrantless
searches
example
officers
may
seize
evidence
plain
view
violated
fourth
amendment
arriving
spot
observation
evidence
made
see
horton
california
may
seek
encounters
lawfully
present
place
consensual
encounter
occurs
see
ins
delgado
pp
courts
including
kentucky
imposed
additional
requirements
asking
whether
officers
created
exigent
circumstances
bad
faith
intent
avoid
warrant
requirement
case
reasoning
police
may
rely
exigency
reasonably
foreseeable
investigative
tactics
create
exigent
circumstances
ibid
faulting
officers
knocking
door
sufficient
evidence
seek
warrant
finding
officers
created
manufactured
exigency
investigation
contrary
standard
good
law
enforcement
practices
requirements
unsound
thus
rejected
pp
respondent
contends
exigency
impermissibly
created
officers
engage
conduct
cause
reasonable
person
believe
entry
imminent
inevitable
approach
also
flawed
ability
officers
respond
exigency
turn
subtleties
officers
tone
voice
announcing
presence
forcefulness
knocks
forceful
knock
may
necessary
alert
occupants
someone
door
unless
officers
identify
loudly
enough
occupants
may
know
doorstep
respondent
test
make
extremely
difficult
officers
know
loudly
may
announce
presence
forcefully
may
knock
without
running
afoul
exigency
rule
cases
nearly
impossible
determine
whether
threshold
passed
pp
assuming
exigency
existed
evidence
officers
either
violated
fourth
amendment
threatened
prior
point
entered
apartment
pp
question
whether
exigency
existed
better
addressed
kentucky
remand
assuming
exigency
exist
officers
conduct
banging
door
announcing
presence
entirely
consistent
fourth
amendment
respondent
pointed
evidence
supporting
argument
officers
made
sort
demand
enter
apartment
much
less
demand
amounts
threat
violate
fourth
amendment
contradictory
evidence
brought
attention
state
may
elect
address
matter
remand
finally
record
makes
clear
officers
announcement
going
enter
apartment
made
exigency
arose
pp
reversed
remanded
alito
delivered
opinion
roberts
scalia
kennedy
thomas
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
ginsburg
filed
dissenting
opinion
kentucky
petitioner
hollis
deshaun
king
writ
certiorari
kentucky
may
justice
alito
delivered
opinion
well
established
exigent
circumstances
including
need
prevent
destruction
evidence
permit
police
officers
conduct
otherwise
permissible
search
without
first
obtaining
warrant
case
consider
whether
rule
applies
police
knocking
door
residence
announcing
presence
cause
occupants
attempt
destroy
evidence
kentucky
held
exigent
circumstances
rule
apply
case
hand
police
foreseen
conduct
prompt
occupants
attempt
destroy
evidence
reject
interpretation
exigent
circumstances
rule
conduct
police
prior
entry
apartment
entirely
lawful
violate
fourth
amendment
threaten
situation
exigent
circumstances
rule
applies
case
concerns
search
apartment
lexington
kentucky
police
officers
set
controlled
buy
crack
cocaine
outside
apartment
complex
undercover
officer
gibbons
watched
deal
take
place
unmarked
car
nearby
parking
lot
deal
occurred
gibbons
radioed
uniformed
officers
move
suspect
told
officers
suspect
moving
quickly
toward
breezeway
apartment
building
urged
hurry
get
suspect
entered
apartment
app
response
radio
alert
uniformed
officers
drove
nearby
parking
lot
left
vehicles
ran
breezeway
entered
breezeway
heard
door
shut
detected
strong
odor
burnt
marijuana
end
breezeway
officers
saw
two
apartments
one
left
one
right
know
apartment
suspect
entered
gibbons
radioed
suspect
running
apartment
right
officers
hear
statement
already
left
vehicles
smelled
marijuana
smoke
emanating
apartment
left
approached
door
apartment
officer
steven
cobb
one
uniformed
officers
approached
door
testified
officers
banged
left
apartment
door
loud
announced
police
police
cobb
said
soon
officers
started
banging
door
hear
people
inside
moving
sounded
though
things
moved
inside
apartment
noises
cobb
testified
led
officers
believe
evidence
destroyed
point
officers
announced
going
make
entry
inside
apartment
ibid
cobb
kicked
door
officers
entered
apartment
found
three
people
front
room
respondent
hollis
king
respondent
girlfriend
guest
smoking
officers
performed
protective
sweep
apartment
saw
marijuana
powder
cocaine
plain
view
subsequent
search
also
discovered
crack
cocaine
cash
drug
paraphernalia
police
eventually
entered
apartment
right
inside
found
suspected
drug
dealer
initial
target
investigation
fayette
county
circuit
grand
jury
charged
respondent
trafficking
marijuana
trafficking
controlled
substance
persistent
felony
offender
status
respondent
filed
motion
suppress
evidence
warrantless
search
circuit
denied
motion
circuit
concluded
officers
probable
cause
investigate
marijuana
odor
officers
properly
conducted
investigation
initially
knocking
door
apartment
unit
awaiting
response
consensual
entry
app
pet
cert
exigent
circumstances
justified
warrantless
entry
held
response
knocking
officer
cobb
heard
movement
apartment
reasonably
concluded
persons
act
destroying
evidence
particularly
narcotics
smell
ibid
respondent
entered
conditional
guilty
plea
reserving
right
appeal
denial
suppression
motion
sentenced
respondent
years
imprisonment
kentucky
appeals
affirmed
held
exigent
circumstances
justified
warrantless
entry
police
reasonably
believed
evidence
destroyed
police
impermissibly
create
exigency
explained
deliberately
evade
warrant
requirement
kentucky
reversed
preliminary
matter
observed
certainly
question
whether
sound
persons
moving
inside
apartment
sufficient
establish
evidence
destroyed
answer
question
instead
assume
purpose
argument
exigent
circumstances
existed
ibid
determine
whether
police
impermissibly
created
exigency
kentucky
announced
test
first
held
police
deliberately
creat
exigent
circumstances
bad
faith
intent
avoid
warrant
requirement
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
second
even
absent
bad
faith
concluded
police
may
rely
exigent
circumstances
reasonably
foreseeable
investigative
tactics
employed
police
create
exigent
circumstances
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
although
found
evidence
bad
faith
held
exigent
circumstances
justify
search
reasonably
foreseeable
occupants
destroy
evidence
police
knocked
door
announced
presence
ibid
granted
certiorari
ii
fourth
amendment
provides
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
shall
violated
warrants
shall
issue
upon
probable
cause
supported
oath
affirmation
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
text
amendment
thus
expressly
imposes
two
requirements
first
searches
seizures
must
reasonable
second
warrant
may
issued
unless
probable
cause
properly
established
scope
authorized
search
set
particularity
see
payton
new
york
although
text
fourth
amendment
specify
search
warrant
must
obtained
inferred
warrant
must
generally
secured
principle
fourth
amendment
law
often
said
searches
seizures
inside
home
without
warrant
presumptively
unreasonable
brigham
city
stuart
quoting
groh
ramirez
also
recognized
presumption
may
overcome
circumstances
ultimate
touchstone
fourth
amendment
brigham
city
supra
see
also
michigan
fisher
per
curiam
slip
accordingly
warrant
requirement
subject
certain
reasonable
exceptions
brigham
city
supra
one
exception
applies
exigencies
situation
make
needs
law
compelling
warrantless
search
objectively
reasonable
fourth
amendment
mincey
arizona
see
also
payton
supra
fourth
amendment
drawn
firm
line
entrance
house
absent
exigent
circumstances
threshold
may
reasonably
crossed
without
warrant
identified
several
exigencies
may
justify
warrantless
search
home
see
brigham
city
emergency
aid
exception
example
officers
may
enter
home
without
warrant
render
emergency
assistance
injured
occupant
protect
occupant
imminent
injury
ibid
see
also
fisher
supra
slip
upholding
warrantless
home
entry
based
emergency
aid
exception
police
officers
may
enter
premises
without
warrant
hot
pursuit
fleeing
suspect
see
santana
relevant
need
prevent
imminent
destruction
evidence
long
recognized
sufficient
justification
warrantless
search
brigham
city
supra
see
also
georgia
randolph
minnesota
olson
years
lower
courts
developed
exception
exigent
circumstances
rule
exigency
doctrine
doctrine
police
may
rely
need
prevent
destruction
evidence
exigency
created
manufactured
conduct
police
see
chambers
warrantless
search
stand
law
enforcement
officers
must
responding
unanticipated
exigency
rather
simply
creating
exigency
gould
en
banc
lthough
exigent
circumstances
may
justify
warrantless
probable
cause
entry
home
exigent
circumstances
manufactured
agents
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
applying
exception
creation
manufacturing
exigency
police
courts
require
something
mere
proof
fear
detection
police
caused
destruction
evidence
additional
showing
obviously
needed
eighth
circuit
recognized
sense
police
always
create
exigent
circumstances
duchi
say
vast
majority
cases
evidence
destroyed
persons
engaged
illegal
conduct
reason
destruction
fear
evidence
fall
hands
law
enforcement
destruction
evidence
issues
probably
occur
frequently
drug
cases
drugs
may
easily
destroyed
flushing
toilet
rinsing
drain
persons
possession
valuable
drugs
unlikely
destroy
unless
fear
discovery
police
consequently
rule
precludes
police
making
warrantless
entry
prevent
destruction
evidence
whenever
conduct
causes
exigency
unreasonably
shrink
reach
exception
warrant
requirement
presumably
purpose
avoiding
result
lower
courts
held
exigency
doctrine
requires
simple
causation
lower
courts
agreed
test
applied
indeed
petition
case
maintains
currently
five
different
tests
used
courts
appeals
pet
cert
state
courts
crafted
additional
tests
iii
despite
welter
tests
devised
lower
courts
answer
question
presented
case
follows
directly
clearly
principle
permits
warrantless
searches
first
place
previously
noted
warrantless
searches
allowed
circumstances
make
reasonable
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
dispense
warrant
requirement
therefore
answer
question
us
exigent
circumstances
rule
justifies
warrantless
search
conduct
police
preceding
exigency
reasonable
sense
police
create
exigency
engaging
threatening
engage
conduct
violates
fourth
amendment
warrantless
entry
prevent
destruction
evidence
reasonable
thus
taken
similar
approach
cases
involving
warrantless
searches
example
held
law
enforcement
officers
may
seize
evidence
plain
view
provided
violated
fourth
amendment
arriving
spot
observation
evidence
made
see
horton
california
put
horton
essential
predicate
valid
warrantless
seizure
incriminating
evidence
officer
violate
fourth
amendment
arriving
place
evidence
plainly
viewed
long
prerequisite
satisfied
however
matter
officer
makes
observation
may
gone
spot
evidence
seen
hope
able
view
seize
evidence
see
fact
officer
interested
item
evidence
fully
expects
find
course
search
invalidate
seizure
instead
fourth
amendment
requires
steps
preceding
seizure
lawful
see
similarly
officers
may
seek
encounters
lawfully
present
place
consensual
encounter
occurs
see
ins
delgado
noting
officers
entered
encounters
employees
factory
building
lawfully
present
factory
pursuant
consent
warrant
consent
freely
given
makes
difference
officer
may
approached
person
hope
expectation
obtaining
consent
see
citizens
respond
police
request
fact
people
without
told
free
respond
hardly
eliminates
consensual
nature
response
lower
courts
adopted
rule
similar
one
recognize
today
see
macdonald
en
banc
law
enforcement
officers
impermissibly
create
exigent
circumstances
act
entirely
lawful
manner
state
robinson
wi
others
including
kentucky
imposed
additional
requirements
unsound
reject
bad
faith
courts
including
kentucky
ask
whether
law
enforcement
officers
created
exigent
circumstances
bad
faith
intent
avoid
warrant
requirement
quoting
gould
see
also
chambers
socey
cadc
rengifo
approach
fundamentally
inconsistent
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
cases
repeatedly
rejected
subjective
approach
asking
whether
circumstances
viewed
objectively
justify
action
city
alteration
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
fisher
slip
indeed
never
held
outside
limited
contexts
inventory
search
administrative
inspection
officer
motive
invalidates
objectively
justifiable
behavior
fourth
amendment
whren
see
also
brigham
city
supra
reasons
looking
objective
factors
rather
subjective
intent
clear
legal
tests
based
reasonableness
generally
objective
long
taken
view
evenhanded
law
enforcement
best
achieved
application
objective
standards
conduct
rather
standards
depend
upon
subjective
state
mind
officer
horton
supra
reasonable
foreseeability
courts
including
kentucky
hold
police
may
rely
exigency
reasonably
foreseeable
investigative
tactics
employed
police
create
exigent
circumstances
quoting
mann
state
ark
see
also
mowatt
courts
applying
test
invalidated
warrantless
home
searches
ground
reasonably
foreseeable
police
officers
knocking
door
announcing
presence
lead
drug
suspect
destroy
evidence
see
contrary
reasoning
however
rejected
notion
police
may
seize
evidence
without
warrant
come
across
evidence
happenstance
horton
noted
held
police
may
seize
evidence
plain
view
even
though
officers
may
interested
item
evidence
fully
expec
find
course
search
adoption
reasonable
foreseeability
test
also
introduce
unacceptable
degree
unpredictability
example
whenever
law
enforcement
officers
knock
door
premises
occupied
person
may
involved
drug
trade
possibility
occupants
may
possess
drugs
may
seek
destroy
reasonable
foreseeability
test
necessary
quantify
degree
predictability
must
reached
exigency
doctrine
comes
play
simple
example
illustrates
difficulties
approach
produce
suppose
officers
present
case
smell
marijuana
smoke
thus
knew
chance
fleeing
suspect
entered
apartment
left
rather
apartment
right
circumstances
reasonably
foreseeable
occupants
apartment
left
seek
destroy
evidence
upon
learning
police
door
suppose
officers
knew
suspect
disappeared
one
apartments
floor
even
units
police
chose
door
random
knocked
purpose
asking
occupants
knew
person
fit
description
suspect
reasonably
foreseeable
occupants
seek
destroy
evidence
noted
calculus
reasonableness
must
embody
allowance
fact
police
officers
often
forced
make
judgments
circumstances
tense
uncertain
rapidly
evolving
graham
connor
reasonable
foreseeability
test
create
unacceptable
unwarranted
difficulties
law
enforcement
officers
must
make
quick
decisions
field
well
judges
required
determine
fact
whether
destruction
evidence
response
knock
door
reasonably
foreseeable
based
officers
knew
time
probable
cause
time
secure
warrant
courts
applying
exigency
doctrine
fault
law
enforcement
officers
acquiring
evidence
sufficient
establish
probable
cause
search
particular
premises
officers
seek
warrant
instead
knock
door
seek
either
speak
occupant
obtain
consent
search
see
chambers
supra
citing
failure
seek
warrant
face
plentiful
probable
cause
factor
indicating
police
deliberately
created
exigency
approach
unjustifiably
interferes
legitimate
law
enforcement
strategies
many
entirely
proper
reasons
police
may
want
seek
search
warrant
soon
bare
minimum
evidence
needed
establish
probable
cause
acquired
without
attempting
provide
comprehensive
list
reasons
note
first
police
may
wish
speak
occupants
dwelling
deciding
whether
worthwhile
seek
authorization
search
may
think
short
simple
conversation
may
obviate
need
apply
execute
warrant
see
schneckloth
bustamonte
second
police
may
want
ask
occupant
premises
consent
search
simpler
faster
less
burdensome
applying
warrant
consensual
search
also
may
result
considerably
less
inconvenience
embarrassment
occupants
search
conducted
pursuant
warrant
ibid
third
law
enforcement
officers
may
wish
obtain
evidence
submitting
might
otherwise
considered
marginal
warrant
application
fourth
prosecutors
may
wish
wait
acquire
evidence
justify
search
broader
scope
search
judicial
officer
likely
authorize
based
evidence
available
finally
many
cases
law
enforcement
may
want
execute
search
disclose
existence
investigation
may
interfere
acquisition
additional
evidence
already
suspicion
evidence
additional
yet
unknown
participants
criminal
scheme
said
aw
enforcement
officers
constitutional
duty
call
halt
criminal
investigation
moment
minimum
evidence
establish
probable
cause
hoffa
faulting
police
failing
apply
search
warrant
earliest
possible
time
obtaining
probable
cause
imposes
duty
nowhere
found
constitution
standard
good
investigative
tactics
finally
lower
cases
suggest
law
enforcement
officers
may
found
created
manufactured
exigency
concludes
course
investigation
contrary
standard
good
law
enforcement
practices
policies
practices
jurisdictions
gould
approach
fails
provide
clear
guidance
law
enforcement
officers
authorizes
courts
make
judgments
matters
province
responsible
federal
state
law
enforcement
agencies
respondent
argues
rule
differs
discussed
rule
also
flawed
respondent
contends
law
enforcement
officers
impermissibly
create
exigency
engage
conduct
cause
reasonable
person
believe
entry
imminent
inevitable
brief
respondent
respondent
view
relevant
factors
include
officers
tone
voice
announcing
presence
forcefulness
knocks
ability
law
enforcement
officers
respond
exigency
turn
subtleties
police
officers
may
good
reason
announce
presence
loudly
knock
door
force
forceful
knock
may
necessary
alert
occupants
someone
door
cf
banks
police
rapped
hard
enough
door
heard
officers
back
door
announced
presence
defendant
shower
testified
heard
nothing
furthermore
unless
police
officers
identify
loudly
enough
occupants
may
know
doorstep
officers
permitted
indeed
encouraged
identify
citizens
many
circumstances
cause
assurance
discomfort
drayton
citizens
startled
unexpected
knock
door
sight
unknown
persons
plain
clothes
doorstep
may
relieved
learn
persons
police
officers
others
may
appreciate
opportunity
make
informed
decision
whether
answer
door
police
respondent
test
adopted
extremely
difficult
police
officers
know
loudly
may
announce
presence
forcefully
may
knock
door
without
running
afoul
exigency
rule
cases
nearly
impossible
determine
whether
threshold
passed
fourth
amendment
require
nebulous
impractical
test
respondent
reasons
conclude
exigent
circumstances
rule
applies
police
gain
entry
premises
means
actual
threatened
violation
fourth
amendment
holding
provides
ample
protection
privacy
rights
amendment
protects
law
enforcement
officers
armed
warrant
knock
door
private
citizen
might
whether
person
knocks
door
requests
opportunity
speak
police
officer
private
citizen
occupant
obligation
open
door
speak
cf
florida
royer
may
decline
listen
questions
may
go
way
police
knock
door
occupants
choose
respond
speak
investigation
reached
conspicuously
low
point
occupants
kind
warning
even
elaborate
security
system
provide
chambers
sutton
dissenting
even
occupant
chooses
open
door
speak
officers
occupant
need
allow
officers
enter
premises
may
refuse
answer
questions
time
occupants
choose
stand
constitutional
rights
instead
elect
attempt
destroy
evidence
blame
warrantless
search
may
ensue
iv
apply
interpretation
exigency
doctrine
facts
case
need
decide
whether
exigent
circumstances
existed
case
warrantless
entry
based
exigent
circumstances
must
course
supported
genuine
exigency
see
brigham
city
trial
kentucky
appeals
found
real
exigency
case
kentucky
expressed
doubt
issue
observing
certainly
question
whether
sound
persons
moving
inside
apartment
sufficient
establish
evidence
destroyed
kentucky
assum
ed
purpose
argument
exigent
circumstances
existed
held
police
impermissibly
manufactured
exigency
assume
purposes
argument
exigency
existed
decide
question
kentucky
ruled
granted
certiorari
circumstances
police
impermissibly
create
exigency
question
whether
exigency
actually
existed
better
addressed
kentucky
remand
see
kirk
louisiana
per
curiam
reversing
judgment
exigent
circumstances
required
warrantless
home
entry
remanding
state
determine
whether
exigent
circumstances
present
case
see
evidence
officers
either
violated
fourth
amendment
threatened
prior
point
entered
apartment
officer
cobb
testified
without
contradiction
officers
banged
door
loud
announced
either
police
police
app
conduct
entirely
consistent
fourth
amendment
aware
evidence
might
show
officers
either
violated
fourth
amendment
threatened
example
announcing
break
door
occupants
open
door
voluntarily
respondent
argues
officers
demanded
entry
apartment
pointed
evidence
record
supports
assertion
relies
passing
statement
made
trial
opinion
denying
respondent
motion
suppress
see
app
pet
cert
recounting
events
preceded
search
judge
wrote
officers
banged
door
apartment
back
left
breezeway
identifying
police
officers
demanding
door
opened
persons
inside
ibid
emphasis
added
deleted
however
later
point
opinion
judge
stated
officers
initially
knock
ed
door
apartment
unit
await
ed
response
consensual
entry
later
statement
consistent
testimony
suppression
hearing
findings
state
appellate
courts
see
officers
knocked
loudly
back
left
apartment
door
announced
app
pet
cert
officers
knock
ed
door
announc
ed
police
app
evidence
demand
sort
much
less
demand
amounts
threat
violate
fourth
amendment
contradictory
evidence
brought
attention
state
may
elect
address
matter
remand
finally
respondent
claims
officers
explained
occupants
officers
going
make
entry
inside
apartment
record
clear
officers
make
statement
exigency
arose
officer
cobb
testified
officers
knew
possibly
something
going
destroyed
inside
apartment
point
explained
going
make
entry
ibid
emphasis
added
given
announcement
made
exigency
arose
created
exigency
like
assume
purposes
argument
exigency
existed
officers
case
violate
threaten
violate
fourth
amendment
prior
exigency
hold
exigency
justified
warrantless
search
apartment
judgment
kentucky
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
kentucky
petitioner
hollis
deshaun
king
writ
certiorari
kentucky
may
justice
ginsburg
dissenting
today
arms
police
way
routinely
dishonor
fourth
amendment
warrant
requirement
drug
cases
lieu
presenting
evidence
neutral
magistrate
police
officers
may
knock
listen
break
door
nevermind
ample
time
obtain
warrant
dissent
reduction
fourth
amendment
force
fourth
amendment
guarantees
people
right
secure
houses
unreasonable
searches
seizures
warrants
search
amendment
instructs
shall
issue
upon
showing
probable
cause
believe
criminal
activity
afoot
complementary
provisions
designed
ensure
police
seek
authorization
neutral
magistrate
undertaking
search
seizure
exceptions
warrant
requirement
explained
must
number
carefully
delineated
main
rule
remain
hardy
dist
eastern
dist
see
kyllo
case
involves
principal
exception
warrant
requirement
exception
applicable
exigent
circumstances
see
ante
arefully
delineated
exception
govern
genuine
emergency
situations
circumstances
qualify
exigent
imminent
risk
death
serious
injury
danger
evidence
immediately
destroyed
suspect
escape
brigham
city
stuart
question
presented
may
police
pause
gain
approval
neutral
magistrate
dispense
need
get
warrant
creating
exigent
circumstances
answer
kentucky
urgency
must
exist
rule
police
come
scene
subsequent
arrival
prompted
conduct
two
pillars
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
controlled
ruling
first
whenever
practical
police
must
obtain
advance
judicial
approval
searches
seizures
warrant
procedure
terry
ohio
second
unwarranted
searches
seizures
inside
home
bear
heightened
scrutiny
payton
new
york
warrant
requirement
justice
jackson
observed
ranks
among
fundamental
distinctions
form
government
officers
law
law
johnson
accordingly
declared
warrantless
searches
main
per
se
unreasonable
mincey
arizona
see
also
groh
ramirez
police
bear
heavy
burden
cautioned
attempting
demonstrate
urgent
need
might
justify
warrantless
searches
welsh
wisconsin
heavy
burden
carried
little
risk
evidence
destroyed
police
delayed
search
pending
magistrate
authorization
recognizes
ersons
possession
valuable
drugs
unlikely
destroy
unless
fear
discovery
police
ante
nothing
record
shows
prior
knock
apartment
door
occupants
apprehensive
police
proximity
quarter
fourth
amendment
apply
greater
force
homes
private
space
centuries
regarded
special
protection
georgia
randolph
minnesota
carter
kennedy
concurring
home
intrusions
said
indeed
chief
evil
fourth
amendment
directed
payton
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
silverman
fourth
amendment
core
stands
right
man
retreat
home
free
unreasonable
governmental
earches
seizures
inside
home
without
warrant
therefore
presumptively
unreasonable
brigham
city
quoting
groh
secure
homes
remain
police
armed
warrant
pound
doors
hearing
sounds
indicative
things
moving
forcibly
enter
search
evidence
unlawful
activity
ii
noted
justify
police
activity
case
kentucky
invoked
exception
emergencies
delay
necessary
obtain
warrant
threaten
destruction
evidence
schmerber
california
quoting
preston
fit
within
exception
police
action
literally
must
taken
never
preserve
evidence
crime
roaden
kentucky
existence
genuine
emergency
depends
state
necessity
time
warrantless
search
depends
first
foremost
actions
taken
police
preceding
warrantless
search
coles
see
also
chambers
fficers
must
seek
warrant
based
probable
cause
believe
advance
find
contraband
evidence
asting
clear
opportunity
obtain
warrant
therefore
disentitles
officer
relying
subsequent
exigent
circumstances
saltzburg
capra
american
criminal
procedure
ed
appropriately
emergency
exigent
circumstances
exception
result
case
doubt
target
investigation
entry
building
smell
marijuana
seeping
apartment
door
hallway
kentucky
rightly
determined
gave
police
probable
cause
sufficient
obtain
warrant
search
apartment
observed
nothing
made
impracticable
police
post
officers
premises
proceeding
obtain
warrant
authorizing
entry
kentucky
urge
otherwise
see
brief
petitioner
asserting
importance
whether
police
obtained
warrant
johnson
confronted
scenario
standing
outside
hotel
room
police
smelled
burning
opium
heard
shuffling
noise
coming
room
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
police
enter
room
without
warrant
answered
explaining
said
right
officers
thrust
home
grave
concern
individual
society
chooses
dwell
reasonable
security
freedom
surveillance
right
privacy
must
reasonably
yield
right
search
rule
decided
judicial
officer
policeman
officers
case
excused
constitutional
duty
presenting
evidence
magistrate
difficult
think
case
warrant
required
agree
allow
expedient
knock
override
warrant
requirement
instead
accord
core
requirement
fourth
amendment
full
respect
possible
warrant
must
generally
secured
acknowledges
ante
every
reason
conclude
securing
warrant
entirely
feasible
case
reason
contract
fourth
amendment
dominion
footnotes
respondent
girlfriend
leased
apartment
respondent
stayed
part
time
child
lived
based
facts
kentucky
conceded
state
respondent
fourth
amendment
standing
challenge
search
see
app
pet
cert
see
also
granted
certiorari
respondent
filed
motion
dismiss
petition
improvidently
granted
denied
respondent
principal
argument
case
moot
kentucky
reversed
conviction
circuit
dismissed
charges
respondent
argument
foreclosed
explained
reversal
kentucky
decision
reinstate
judgment
conviction
sentence
entered
circuit
ibid
absence
indictment
change
matters
see
ibid
upon
respondents
conviction
sentence
indictment
returned
merged
convictions
sentences
preventing
destruction
evidence
may
also
justify
dispensing
fourth
amendment
requirements
contexts
see
richards
wisconsin
failure
comply
requirement
justified
circumstances
show
ed
officers
reasonable
suspicion
suspect
might
destroy
evidence
given
opportunity
schmerber
california
warrantless
testing
content
justified
based
potential
destruction
evidence
cf
banks
seconds
reasonable
time
officers
wait
knocking
announcing
presence
risk
suspect
dispose
cocaine
strong
argument
made
least
circumstances
exigent
circumstances
rule
apply
police
without
warrant
legally
sound
basis
warrantless
entry
threaten
enter
without
permission
unless
admitted
case
however
actual
threat
made
therefore
need
reach
question
contrary
respondent
argument
see
brief
respondent
johnson
require
affirmance
case
johnson
officers
noticed
smell
burning
opium
emanating
hotel
room
knocked
door
demanded
entry
upon
seeing
johnson
occupant
room
placed
arrest
searched
room
discovered
opium
drug
paraphernalia
defending
legality
search
government
attempted
justify
warrantless
search
room
valid
search
incident
lawful
arrest
see
brief
johnson
pp
government
contend
officers
entered
room
order
prevent
destruction
evidence
although
officers
said
heard
noise
inside
room
knocked
door
government
claim
particular
noise
noise
led
reasonable
officer
think
evidence
destroyed
thus
johnson
simply
case
exigent
circumstances
see
noting
exceptional
circumstances
existed
example
suspect
fleeing
likely
take
flight
evidence
contraband
threatened
removal
destruction
may
contended
magistrate
warrant
search
may
dispensed
footnotes
johnson
informed
officer
knocked
johnson
door
thing
naturally
struck
conceal
opium
equipment
smoking
see
brief
johnson
government
johnson
urged
shuffling
noise
indicated
evidence
risk
result
changed
justice
jackson
recognition
primacy
warrant
requirement
suggests
see
ante
distinguishing
johnson
ground
government
contend
officers
entered
room
order
prevent
destruction
evidence