About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



161 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 1 (2012-2013)

handle is hein.journals/pennumbra161 and id is 1 raw text is: CASE NOTE
KNOCK, LISTEN, THEN BREAK THE DOOR DOWN?
THE POLICE-CREATED EXIGENCY DOCTRINE AFTER
KENTUCKY v. KING
RACHEL LEVICK-
In an effort to curtail the excesses of the general warrant and to
protect Americans and their private property,2 the authors of the Bill
of Rights in the Fourth Amendment conditioned the issuance of war-
rants on the presence of probable cause. Though this language has
been construed to require such a warrant for most searches of the
home, the Supreme Court has identified several exceptions to this
rule, including the exigent circumstances exception. Where the
exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so
compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search is constitutional? In an
t Senior Editor, Volume 161, University of Pennsylvania Law Review. J.D. Candidate,
2013, University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A., 2010, University of Pennsylvania. My
most sincere thanks to D. Benjamin Thomas and Erin Borek for their diligent work in
preparing this piece for publication, and to David Dorey for his guidance, insight, and
assistance during the writing process.
See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 583 (1980) ([I]ndiscriminate searches and
seizures conducted under the authority of 'general warrants' were the immediate evils
that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment.).
2 See id. at 585 (The simple language of the Amendment applies equally to seizures
of persons and to seizures of property.).
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
See e.g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94 (1978) ([W]arrents are generally
required to search a person's home or his person. . . .).
Id. at 394 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has identified
several such exigencies, including the need to provide emergency medical aid, the hot
pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and the prevention of imminent destruction of evidence.
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011).

(1)