Opinion ID: 619348
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Creation of the Exigency

Text: The officers were justified in believing the commotion in the motel room indicated its occupants were attempting to destroy evidence. See United States v. Carr, 939 F.2d 1442, 1447-48 (10th Cir. 1991). On appeal, Hendrix does not contend there were no exigent circumstances justifying entry. Rather, he contends the officers impermissibly created the exigency through bad-faith avoidance of the warrant requirement. The officers' bad faith, Hendrix argues, is shown by their decision to go directly to the motel room at night without first seeking a warrant or further corroboration of the informant's tip, giving a false name, and continually demanding entry after initially being refused. The court need not consider whether these actions are sufficiently indicative of bad faith because the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kentucky v. King, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011), obviates the need for such an analysis. In King, the Court held Where . . . the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed. 131 S.Ct. at 1858. In a footnote, the Court also described the limits of its holding: There is a strong argument to be made that, at least in most circumstances, the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted. Id. at 1858 n. 4. The Court explicitly rejected an approach, previously relied upon by some courts, that determined whether police impermissibly create the exigency by looking to whether officers acted in bad faith. Id. at 1859. Hendrix makes no argument that Officers Hanes or Robertson created the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1858. He also makes no showing that Officers Hanes or Robertson threatened to enter the motel without permission unless admitted. The record before the court also does not suggest any factual basis for such an argument. The district court therefore properly determined the warrantless entry and subsequent search of Hendrix's motel room was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.