March 2026 | The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 40
Continued from Page 26
Supreme Court of the United States The Court began its analysis by outlining the foundational precedents that, together, support its conclusion that the probable cause standard,“ borrowed from the criminal context, is inapt” when applied to the Emergency Aid exception.
First, in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400( 2006), the Supreme Court held that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an“ objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. The Supreme Court cited the Brigham standard to clarify that this language does not require nor imply probable cause, because“ the probable-cause requirement is rooted in, and derives its meaning from, the criminal context,” and the Court therefore explained that it“ decline [ s ] to transplant it to this different one.” In the Court’ s words:“ Brigham City’ s reasonableness standard means just what it says, with no further gloss. And here it was satisfied because the police had‘ an objectively reasonable basis for believing’ that a homeowner intended to take his own life and, indeed, may already have shot himself.”
Second, the Court relied on Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47( 2009)( per curiam), which relied on the same Emergency Aid standard from Brigham City. In Fisher, officers responding to a neighbor’ s call encountered broken windows, blood on the scene, and observed a man inside“ screaming and throwing things.” In that case, the Court held that officers’ entry was reasonable because officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside the home required immediate emergency aid.
Lastly, the Court pointed to Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U. S. 194, 198( 2021), to clarify what does not justify a home entry. In Caniglia, the Court rejected the“ community caretaking” justification for warrantless home entries, and reaffirmed that under Brigham, officers may enter a home to“ render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” However, it emphasized that emergency conditions were indeed necessary, refusing to permit an“ open-ended license” for warrantless entry under the care-taking function alone.
The Court rejected Case’ s argument that officers’ entry created the“ likely danger” by triggering a potential“ suicide-by-cop,” and that if the officers had left it alone, nothing would have occurred. Importantly, the Court reiterated that“ the objective reasonableness of an officer’ s conduct under Brigham City, as in other Fourth Amendment contexts, is evaluated by looking at the‘ totality of the circumstances.’” E. g., Barnes v. Felix, 605 U. S. 73, 80( 2025); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39( 1996). Recognizing Case’ s point regarding the potential provocation that would lead to confrontation, the Court acknowledged that this danger was undoubtedly one of the many considerations factored into this analysis. However, the Court recited the overwhelming circumstances that justified officers’ entry, being that Case may already have shot himself or would do so absent intervention. The Supreme Court concluded that the officers’ decision to enter his home to prevent that result, despite serious danger to the officers themselves, was“ at least reasonable.”“ The Fourth Amendment did not require them, as Case argued, to leave him to his fate.”
The 9-0 opinion concluded with the following note:“ We repeat today what we have held before: An officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has‘ an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.’ Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 400. The officers’ entry satisfied that test. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment( even though not all the reasoning) of the Montana Supreme Court.”
Attorney Daigle focuses on evaluating and providing policy and training on areas of increased liability for departments across the country. Attorney Daigle’ s keynote focuses on understanding current trends in legal standards, operational standards, and community concern. More importantly, the intersection between these topics to provide departments evaluation and recommendations to move forward.
This article is produced to provide general information on the topic presented. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or professional services. Although this article is prepared by professionals, it should not be used as a substitute for professional services. If legal or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.