regarding whether there was anyone else in the house (first he said yes and then he said no); hearing a door slam within the house; the nature of narcotics which can be easily destroyed; and the possibility that someone in the house could present a danger to the officers. The risk of removal or the destruction of narcotics has long been recognized as an exigent circumstance obviating the need to obtain an arrest or search warrant. See United States v. Rubin, 474 F.2d 262, 268 (3d Cir.1973). As the Supreme Court noted in King, “[djestruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing them down a toilet or rinsing them down a drain.” King, 131 S.Ct. at 1857; see also U.S. v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Whether exigent circumstances existed is
holding that in narcotics cases the need to invoke the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement is particularly compelling in narcotics eases because narcotics can be so quickly destroyed quoting united states v young 909 f2d 442 446 11th cir1990 holding exigent circumstances existed because bathroom in hotel room was next to hallway door where the narcotics could have been particularly flushed and the suspected drug was crackcocaine which makes it not impossible that drugs were easily disposable holding in narcotics conspiracy case that phone calls from one district into another can establish venue in the latter district so long as they further the ends of the conspiracy recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient