Exigent circumstances refer to emergency situations that could cause harm and justify a warrantless search. They include situations where waiting for a warrant risks injury to police or others, destruction of evidence, or a suspect escaping. Examples of exigent circumstances are police pursuing a fleeing suspect or risking destruction of evidence. The Kentucky v. King and Missouri v. McNeely Supreme Court cases dealt with whether law enforcement actions could create an exigent circumstance allowing a warrantless search or if a warrant was still required.

1. Describe what exigent circumstances mean and at least 2
examples of when this could apply.
When looking at the Fourth Amendment it states that it
protects the rights of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and personal effects against unreasonable search
and seizer and that no warrants shall issue without probable
cause (Lewis, 2012). Cornell Law school defines exigent
circumstances as a circumstance that would cause a person to
believe that entry is necessary to prevent someone from
physical harm to law enforcement or other person(s),
destruction of evidence, suspect escaping, other efforts that may
impede law enforcement efforts (Cornell Law, 2019). We must
also keep in mind that exigent circumstances may also occur
when the police are in pursuit of a suspect that is fleeing from
law enforcement or was involved in criminal activity. For
example, the
Kentucky v. King
case in which the court is trying to decide when the emergency
(exigent) circumstance exist and whether or not law
enforcement actions can create the exigent circumstance, then
allowing the to conduct a search (Warrantless Searches, 2011).
Another example is the
Missouri v. McNeely
court case where the supreme court ruled in favor of Mr.
McNeely because officers failed to obtain a warrant before
subjecting the individual to a blood test. The Supreme Court
also stated that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does
not establish an exigent circumstance that would justify a blood
draw without consent (
Missouri v. McNeely
, 2013)

2. respond to to discussion question 100 words no reference please
in your own words