governmental intrusion .” Collins v . Virginia , 138 S . Ct . 1663 , 1670 ( 2018 ) ( citation omitted ). Indeed , “ physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed .” United States v . U . S . Dist . Ct ., 407 U . S . 297 , 313 ( 1972 ). For that reason , it is a “ basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable .” Groh v . Ramirez , 540 U . S . 551 , 559 , ( 2004 ) ( quotation and citation omitted ). Exceptions to the warrant requirement exist , but the Court has been careful to limit them . This approach preserves the primacy of the warrant process and ensures that police officers have “ clear guidance ... through categorical rules .” Riley v . California , 573 U . S . 373 , 398 , ( 2014 ). The Court has recognized two exceptions to the warrant requirement in the context of entries to the home -- consent and exigent circumstances -- but these are “ jealously and carefully drawn .” Georgia v . Randolph , 547 U . S . 103 , 109 ( 2006 ) ( citation omitted ). When a warrantless entry is challenged in court , “ the burden is on the government ” to “ overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries .” Welsh v . Wisconsin , 466 U . S . 740 , 750 ( 1984 ).
An officer ’ s entry into a home can be justified by consent only when it is voluntarily given by an individual such as the householder or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over the home . Randolph , 547 U . S . at 109 . Common authority is based on “ mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes .” Illinois v . Rodriguez , 497 U . S . 177 , 181 ( 1990 ) ( citation and quotations omitted ). It must appear to the objective , reasonable officer that the consenting person does in fact have common authority for consent to be valid . Id . at 186 . Each occupant who shares a home assumes the risk that “ any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right ” and that “ any one of them may admit visitors , with the consequence that a guest [ is ] obnoxious .” Id . at 110-11 ( citation omitted ). Even so , the Court has narrowly circumscribed this exception , holding that “ a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him .” Id . at 120 . A “ cooperative occupant ’ s ” consent to a search therefore cannot “ counter the force of an objecting individual ’ s claim to security against the government ’ s intrusion into his dwelling place .” Id . at 115 . The Court acknowledged that it was “ drawing a fine line ” by requiring a physically present , vocal objector , but concluded that such “ formalism ” was “ justified ” by the “ practical value ” of easily applicable rules . Id . at 121 .
The exigent circumstances doctrine , on the other hand , can potentially justify a warrantless home entry when the need for urgent action is “ compelling .” Kentucky v . King , 563 U . S . 452 , 460 ( 2011 ). The Court has identified several circumstances that meet this standard , including “ the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases , to pursue a fleeing suspect , and to assist persons who are seriously injured or are threatened with imminent injury .” Riley , 573 U . S . at 402 . So long as police do not create an exigency themselves by committing an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment , the urgent and compelling need justifies a warrantless entry . King , 563 U . S . at 462 .
The Community Caretaking Exception Although consent and exigent circumstances are the only two grounds that the Supreme Court has accepted to justify a warrantless home entry , the lower courts in Caniglia instead upheld the officers ’ actions based solely on the “ community caretaking ” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement . And so , the only issue before the Supreme Court was whether the “ community caretaking ” exception to the Fourth Amendment ’ s warrant requirement extends to the home . As demonstrated by the brevity of
SUMMER . 2021 13