Beneath the Pretext of ‘Emergency Aid,’ Supreme Court docket Paves the Approach for Unchecked Warrantless House Invasions by Police – The Washington Customary
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for police to enter homes without a warrant under the pretext of emergency aid.
In a blow to longstanding Fourth Amendment protections inside the home, the Court ruled in Case v. Montana that police need only an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury in order to enter a home without a warrant.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute warned the Court in an amicus brief that an expansive emergency-aid exception could be easily manipulated to allow unchecked government intrusion into the home. Although the Court declined to require the higher standard of probable cause—insisting that probable cause is “peculiarly related to criminal investigations”—it agreed with the Institute in rejecting the Montana Supreme Court’s broader “community caretaker” justification that would have allowed warrantless entry based merely on reasonable suspicion.
Get Daily Emails
“There was a time in America when a person’s home was a sanctuary, protected from unlawful searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. That promise is dead,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “When government agents can invade homes on flimsy pretexts, every American’s privacy is at risk.”
The case arose after police were dispatched to William Case’s residence for a welfare check. Case’s ex-girlfriend had called 911 to report that he was intoxicated and suicidal and that she heard a sound resembling a gun being cocked before the line went dead. When officers arrived, no one responded to their knocking and announcements. Through the windows, officers observed empty beer cans, an empty holster, and a notepad. After approximately forty minutes, officers breached the home with long-barrel firearms and a ballistic shield—but without a warrant. During the sweep of the home, an officer shot Case when he emerged from a closet holding an object the officer believed was a weapon.
Case survived and was later charged with assaulting a police officer. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained following the warrantless entry, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires police to meet the higher probable cause standard before entering a home. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that officers need only an “objectively reasonable basis” to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury in order to justify warrantless entry. The Court noted, however, that an emergency-aid entry does not authorize officers to search beyond what is reasonably necessary to address the emergency while ensuring officer safety.
Civil liberties advocates warn that the ruling could have dangerous consequences in situations involving mental health crises. The Institute’s brief cited a Washington Post report showing that during a two-year period, calls for help resulted in police killing 178 of the very people officers had been summoned to assist. Justice Sotomayor referenced the same report in her concurring opinion, cautioning that unwanted police entry into a home during a mental health crisis “can escalate the situation rather than ameliorate it.”
Advocates also warn that the Court’s decision, combined with another recent ruling allowing warrantless searches of homes based on suspicion that a probationer or parolee may reside there, continues to erode the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the home.
Michael J. Lockerby, Matthew Horton, Samuel M. Habein, and Molly Hayssen of Foley & Lardner LLP advanced the arguments in the amicus brief.
Case v. Montana
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead