In Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1854, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011) the Court considered whether the exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement "applies when police, by knocking on the door of a residence and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence." In King, officers attempting to arrest another suspect had lost sight of him when they detected the smell of burnt marijuana coming from an apartment. 563 U.S. at, 131 S.Ct. at 1854. After the officers "banged" on the apartment door and identified themselves as police officers, they "could hear people inside moving . . . it sounded as though things were being moved inside the apartment." Id. Believing that drug-related evidence was being destroyed, the police officers forcibly entered the apartment and found drugs, distribution materials, and drug paraphernalia. Id. After a suppression hearing, the trial court concluded that the smell of marijuana gave the officers probable cause to continue with their investigation and denied King's motion to suppress the evidence. Id. at, 131 S.Ct. at 1855. On review from the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's order, the Kentucky Supreme Court announced that the proper test when police officers do not act in bad faith is that officers may not rely on exigent circumstances if "it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics employed by the police would create the exigent circumstances." King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649, 655 (Ky. 2010). Thus, because it was reasonably foreseeable that the occupants would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence, the court concluded that the police officers' warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 657. On review, the United States Supreme Court "assumed" that an exigency arose when the police officers heard the commotion and possible destruction of evidence within the apartment, and held that a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when police officers "did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment." Id. at, 131 S.Ct. at 1858, 1862. Ultimately, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Kentucky Supreme Court to determine whether an exigency actually existed. Id. at, 131 S.Ct. at 1862. Although the Supreme Court assumed in King that an exigency arose before the officers forcibly entered the apartment, the court noted that a "strong argument can 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 n.4, 131 S.Ct. at 1858 n.4.