U.S. v. Ramirez-Fragozo, 2012 WL 2989664 (7/23/12) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th interprets Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011), in a troubling way. In King, the S. Ct. held that officers do not create an exigency by knocking on a door which causes the occupants to hurry to destroy evidence unless the officers make a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The 10th found it did not constitute such a threat when the officers knocked on the front door and announced twice: "Police department Come to the front door." The 10th notes the occupants had no obligation to respond to the knock, but by trying to destroy evidence they only have themselves to blame for the creation of the exigency. The 10th does not discuss the undeniable fact that the police did not give the occupants a choice of ignoring the knocks.