This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Kentucky, the case concerns whether police may create exigent circumstances to justify warrantless entry and the suppression of evidence seized after such entry.
Kentucky argues that the subjective intent of police officers is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis.
The respondent argues that there is insufficient evidence of exigency.
The respondent argues that police may rely on any ensuing exigency.
The smell of marijuana can give probable cause to obtain a search warrant.
Background and question before the Court
According to Kentucky, the issue before the Court is whether police can impermissibly create exigent circumstances, arising from the improper suppression of reasonably seized evidence after a reasonable warrantless entry.
According to Justice Ginsburg, does the Kentucky Supreme Court consider the subjective state of mind of police when evaluating warrantless entries?
According to Justice Kennedy, may police create exigent circumstances and use those circumstances to enter a home?
What each side argues
Kentucky (Petitioner)
According to Kentucky, the subjective intent of police officers is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis.
According to Commonwealth, reasonable police behavior is not made unreasonable by the possibility that evidence may be destroyed; therefore suppression is not the proper remedy.
According to Commonwealth, police act unreasonably when they convey to a reasonable person that entry is imminent and inevitable.
According to Commonwealth, "Lawful" is defined as a synonym for "unreasonable," and no prior Fourth Amendment violation is required.
Hollis Deshaun King (Respondent)
According to Respondent, there is insufficient evidence of exigency to justify suppression of the seized evidence.
According to Respondent, under the Court's interpretation of Fourth Amendment warrant exceptions, police may rely on any ensuing exigency.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked where the Kentucky Supreme Court said it looked at the subjective state of mind of police.
Justice Breyer asked what objections exist to adding the alternative phrase "or in bad faith".
Justice Breyer argued that the lower court was wrong because it treated police tactics that foreseeably create exigent circumstances as irrelevant to reasonableness.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the Court should decide the question of whether police may create exigent circumstances and use them to enter.
Justice Sotomayor asked what the discussion of police officers' lawfulness has to do with the case.
Justice Scalia asked whether it is unlawful for a police officer to threaten to burst into a home.
- [1] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 24
- [3] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 39
- [4] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 44
- [6] 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdf, p. 47
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Kentucky, the case addresses how the Fourth Amendment applies when police create the very circumstances that justify a warrantless entry, potentially expanding or limiting police powers.
According to Respondent, conversely, the respondent’s position that police may rely on any ensuing exigency could broaden police authority to act pre‑emptively, raising concerns about civil liberties.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7ef75573203d45676d3f-r1-e864eca0a453a831.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.