Case v. Montana:  “Probable cause” standard inapplicable to warrantless police entry into homes to render emergency aid

By Greg Mermelstein, Deputy Director & General Counsel, Missouri Public Defender

Police can enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing someone inside needs emergency assistance; they do not need “probable cause” to believe an occupant is in danger, the U.S. Supreme Court held January 14 in Case v. Montana.

Facts

William Case telephoned his ex-girfriend and said he was going to kill himself.  The girlfriend heard what she believed was a gunshot, and called police.

Police arrived at Case’s house.  They knew Case had a history of mental health issues and had previously threatened suicide.

Police knocked on Case’s doors and windows. but received no response.  They decided to enter the house to render emergency aid.

They found Case in a closet holding an object that looked like a gun, and shot Case.

Case was criminally charged with assaulting a police officer.  

He moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the home entry, arguing the entry without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court denied the motion.  After conviction, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted cert. to resolve differences amongst lower courts as to the need for “probable cause” to provide emergency assistance.

Holding

The Court, in an unanimous opinion, held that the criminal “probable cause” standard does not apply in emergency aid situations.

The Court had previously held, in Brigham City v. Stuart, in 2006, that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance or faces serious danger, the Court said.  This is evaluated by looking at the “totality of circumstances.”

“Case, however, wants something more”, the Court said.  He argues that because the Fourth Amendment recognizes the “sanctity of the home”, that police must have “probable cause” to believe an occupant is in need of emergency assistance.

“We decline Case’s invitation to put a new probable-cause spin onto Brigham City”, the Court said.  

The probable cause standard is “rooted” in the “criminal investigatory context”, the Court said.  “The resulting body of law would fit awkwardly, if at all, in the non-criminal, non-investigatory setting at issue here.”

The Court agreed that the Fourth Amendment gives the home a “first among equals” status, but noted the emergency-aid standard is not without limits.

“[W]e note that an emergency-aid entry provides no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers’ safety”, the Court said.

Here, police had an objectively reasonable basis to believe Case needed emergency aid, the Court concluded.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Sotomayor concurred, but wrote separately to emphasize the needs of persons with serious mental health conditions.

People with serious mental health conditions are “disproportionately likely to be injured and seven times more likely to be killed during police interactions compared to the general population”, Sotomayor said.

“Given these risks, in some circumstances it may be more reasonable for officers to try different means of de-escalation before entering the home of a person experiencing a mental health crisis”, she said.  Sotomayor suggested officers could speak with the person from a distance, contact family or friends, or call in specialized personnel with experience in dealing with mental health issues.

“Officers called to respond to these kind of situations should carefully investigate and assess the nature of the potential crisis and determine whether there is an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the occupant needs emergency aid inside before entering without a warrant”, Sotomayor said.  “Once the decision is made to enter, moreover, the ‘manner’ of the officers’ entry and their subsequent entry conduct inside must also be ‘reasonable’”.

It will not always be objectively reasonable for officers responding to a mental-health crisis to make a warrantless entry, Sotomayor said.  If the officers’ entry “would put the occupant (and officers) at a greater risk of escalation and serious injury”, then the entry might not be reasonable.

Justice Gorsuch concurred, but emphasized that the Court’s “objectively reasonable basis” test stems from the common-law, not the individual beliefs of “five or more Justices” about the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.