Category: Search and Seizure

Supreme Court Takes Up Case on Emergency Home Entry

by · Jun 2, 2025 8:19 am

Generally, police need a warrant to enter a home, but there is a long-established exception for emergencies. In 2006 in Brigham City v. Stuart, the Supreme Court held that “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury” will do.

This standard is not phrased in the usual terms of Fourth Amendment standards. It does not say “probable cause,” the term explicitly stated by that amendment as the requirement for a warrant. According to the defendant in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, “The state courts and federal courts of appeals are deeply divided, however, on whether this ‘objectively reasonable basis’ standard requires police making a warrantless entry to have probable cause to believe an emergency exists or some lower level of suspicion.” The court apparently believes there is enough of a split to warrant its attention. Continue reading . . .

Police Use of Force and the “Moment of Threat”

by · May 15, 2025 10:52 am

The Supreme Court has long held that claims of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be evaluated under the “totality of the circumstances.” Since Illinois v. Gates in 1983, it has rejected categorical rules that confine the assessment. Today the high court decided in Barnes v. Felix that a claim of unlawful use of force against a police officer cannot be confined to the “moment of threat.” Unlawful use of force is considered a seizure and analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.

Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.

No big surprise there. The decision was unanimous. Continue reading . . .

Crude Statistics and Discrimination Claims

by · Feb 16, 2024 9:07 am

Here is yet another case of a misleading claim via crude statistics. (See also this post.) This one, unfortunately was actually bought by a federal district judge, with grave implications.

Hans Bader has this post at Liberty Unyielding on a recent decision out of Richmond, Virginia.

A judge recently found that the City of Richmond racially profiles black motorists, dismissing the indictment of a black convicted felon accused of illegally possessing a gun. The judge did not find that defendant Keith Moore had been treated differently than a similarly situated-white motorist. Instead, he ruled that Richmond police stops are racially discriminatory, based on statistics showing blacks are stopped and arrested at much higher rates than whites …. Continue reading . . .

Dangerous New DOJ Policy On Chokeholds and “No-Knock” Warrants

by · Sep 15, 2021 11:39 am

A new memo released from the Department of Justice (DOJ) by Attorney General Merrick Garland makes policy changes that have the potential to endanger the lives of federal agents, as well as the limit the seizure of criminal evidence.  According to the memo released September 14th, 2021, the DOJ is changing policy effective immediately regarding the use of chokeholds and “no-knock” warrants.  The change appears inspired by the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.  Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of causing Floyd’s death by using a form of a chokehold to pin him down after he resisted arrest.  Breonna Taylor died in a shootout which began when her current boyfriend shot at police executing a “no-knock” warrant to arrest her former boyfriend, drug dealer Jamarcus Glover.   Continue reading . . .

Hot Pursuit and Entry Into Homes, a Practical Take

by · Jun 23, 2021 7:01 pm

Kent did a short introduction of today’s Fourth Amendment case, Lange v. California, and I await his more detailed analysis.  In the meantime, I was discussing the case with a defense lawyer friend of mine, a very smart guy and a bit of a cynic.  One of his pals said that the CNN summary of the case went, “The U.S. Supreme court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.”  My buddy had a different view:  “That’s a dead wrong description of an opinion that effectively says the police can do this [a warrantless entry in hot pursuit] 99% of the time and claim good faith the other 1%.”

For most practical purposes in future litigation, that strikes me as pretty much dead on.

Hot Pursuit and Entry Into Homes: Preliminary Note

by · Jun 23, 2021 7:26 am

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that the fact that a police officer is in “hot pursuit” of a person believed to have committed a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) is not by itself sufficient justification to enter a home with neither consent nor a warrant. The case is Lange v. California, No. 20-18. There are some interesting nuances here, which I will have more to say about later.