Supreme Court Takes Up Case on Emergency Home Entry

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.

The Case case involves police entry into the home of a man whose ex-girlfriend reported that he had threatened suicide. Case had a history of attempting “suicide by cop,” i.e. provoking police to shoot him. This placed the police in the position of having to decide whether to enter the home to prevent suicide or whether their entry was actually part of the suicide plan. The state argued in its brief in opposition that this situation makes the present case one of assessment of specific facts, not cleanly presenting the question of the appropriate standard. I think that is correct, but the court chose this case as the vehicle anyway.

Lurking in the background is the issue of why this case presents a federal question at all. Case is clearly guilty of the crimes he was convicted of, assaulting a police officer and “knowingly or purposefully caus[ing] reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in Sgt. Richard Pasha when he pointed a pistol at Sgt. Richard Pasha.” The federal question arises from denial of his motion to suppress the gun as evidence. But the Fourth Amendment says nothing about evidence in criminal cases. The exclusionary rule was constitutionalized and applied to the states by the Supreme Court in 1961 with no basis in the text or history of the Fourth Amendment.

CJLF will decide whether to file an amicus brief in this case after we see the “top side” briefs, probably later this summer.