Do Cops Still Need a Warrant To Search Your Home in an 'Emergency'?
SCOTUS will soon decide.

You're probably familiar with the old adage that "a man's home is his castle." It's the idea that agents of the state may not lawfully enter your home uninvited for any reason that suits them; rather, the state's agents must have a legitimate and verifiable cause. James Madison and his colleagues wrote this view into the U.S. Constitution via the Fourth Amendment, which famously protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that involves the modern application of that adage and its venerable constitutional corollary. Depending on the outcome, it may prove to be one of the most consequential Fourth Amendment cases in years.
You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.
At issue before the Supreme Court this fall in Case v. Montana is the following question: "whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause." In other words, at what point may police officers enter your home without a warrant if they think that an emergency might be happening inside?
The matter arose in 2021 when the ex-girlfriend of a man named William Trevor Case told the authorities that Case had threatened to kill himself during a phone call with her. The cops showed up at Case's house but nobody answered the door. Looking through a window, they saw empty beer cans, a notepad, and an empty handgun holster. After debating among themselves for some 40 minutes about what do to next, the cops finally decided to enter without a warrant via the unlocked front door. (I pause here to note that 40 minutes does sound like a sufficient amount of time for the police to at least try to get a search warrant.)
Case was upstairs hiding in a closet. When he revealed himself by opening the closet's curtain, the officer who was searching the room shot him, striking Case in the abdomen. Case was thus shot by a cop, even though the cop had entered Case's home without a warrant for the ostensible "emergency" purpose of preventing Case from shooting himself.
Case was later charged with assault on that officer, with the charge ultimately amended to state that Case "knowingly or purposefully caused reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in Sgt. Richard Pasha when he pointed a pistol, or what reasonably appeared to be a pistol, at Sgt. Richard Pasha."
Case's lawyers sought to have the evidence used against him ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it was the fruit of an "illegal search and seizure of [Case] and his residence." But the Montana Supreme Court ruled against Case, stating that "while an individual is entitled to a right to privacy in their home, a warrantless entry is permissible if it is reasonable given the facts and circumstances." The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether the state high court's judgment can be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.
Given the significant constitutional stakes involved, it is no wonder that this case has already attracted the keen interest of prominent civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum. For instance, among those who have filed amicus briefs in support of Case are the libertarian Cato Institute, the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
These groups may disagree with each other on plenty of other legal issues, but they are in agreement here that Case's Fourth Amendment rights were abused. As the brief filed by the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation put it, "Warrantless home entries based on mere reasonable suspicion of exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment and needlessly threaten the safety of citizens and law enforcement. If Montana police did not have probable cause to enter Case's home, their search should be declared unconstitutional."
We'll soon find out whether a majority of the justices agree with that assessment or whether they prefer the Montana Supreme Court's more lenient interpretation of what counts as "reasonable" behavior by the cops.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Police can and will do whatever they want, including invading your home without a warrant. Then they make up a story afterwards. With an expensive attorney and a bit of luck you might be able to get some evidence thrown out, but if you get stuck with a public pretender you'll have little choice but to take a plea deal. Meanwhile the police will continue to invade homes without warrants and lie about the reasons, because the only consequence they might face is losing the case in criminal court. Even if you win a settlement in civil court, nothing happens the officers. Taxpayers pay bill and the cops laugh. We live in a police state. And guess who wants to make it worse?
Some will even shoot blindly into a crowd killing unarmed women and have far left alcoholics defend their actions.
This you?
I back the blue when they’re right. In this case, as you very well know, the cop didn’t know she was unarmed and from his vantage point he couldn’t see the crowd. He just saw someone crawling through a smashed barricade while hearing chaos on the police radio. So based upon what he knew based upon what he could see and hear, he did what he thought was right.
Yes, it's always very wise to shoot someone when you don't know what's going on. After all, as far as he knew she was carrying a suitcase nuke and was trying to get closer to the center of the building to do more damage before she set it off! Why, that cop who didn't know what was going on might have prevented World War Three! A real hero!
This was in 2021 under the Biden regime where it could be argued that they were conducting a face diaper check.
Nobody else was believed to be or observed to be home. If nobody answered the door or other circumstances present motivating additional investigation (such as a child screaming for help), the welfare check was completed. This was not a domestic call.
The po-pos had no legal right to enter imo. Hopefully the Nazgul see it that way too.
The po-pos had no legal right to enter imo. Hopefully the Nazgul see it that way too.
Assuming you get neither, but could only have one, which would you prefer: all the other anti-Constitutional actions that took place under a dedicated and documented regime in 2021-2022 or the kinda-sorta punishment of some kinda-sorta off-base back country cops who had nothing to do with anything else in 2021-2022?
Are you really under the impression that the dark night of fascism descended on Germany under the guise of a bunch of women in the far-flung reaches of the countryside phoning in wellness checks to the Gestapo? Because that's even more stupid than "And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people elected Adolph Hitler." and, otherwise, this seems like a case of a few rural MT police officers who were legitimately between a rock and a hard place getting a federal case while all the *other* events of 2021-2022 (continue to) get swept under the rug with charges dropped, cases dismissed, and preemptive pardons issued in perpetuity.
Yeah. Police should be trained better to get/ask-for a warrant in time allowable situations. Just as the article points out. Sounds like the police spent 40-minutes debating for themselves if they should violate the 4A without ever asking the proper authority/judge. There was plenty of enough time to go through the proper channels.
Police are trained on when to get a warrant. They get even more training in what lies to put into their reports, what lies to tell in court, and what lies to tell people to trick them into giving up their rights. They are trained to view the law and the Constitution not as things to be respected and revered, but as impediments to overcome with lies. Everyone in court except the jury knows all this, and they don't care. We live in a police state. And guess who wants to make it worse?
And guess who wants to make it worse?
Every democrat ever elected? Cuz, they are fucking guilty of doing it first, as you so eloquently love to say.
"When Democrats do it it's terrible! They're tyrants! But when Trump does it it's GRRRRRRRRREAT!"
Except nobody here thinks when Trump does horrible things (hut hum; signing the Cares Act) it's great.
You're Self-Projecting your own attitude that Democrats writing the Cares Act is GRRRRRRRRREAT!
...because (D)emocrats can do no wrong in Sarcs mind.
but so long as Sarc Self-Projects endlessly it'll go UN-noticed.
Classical Leftard Self-Projection 101.
Except nobody here thinks when Trump does horrible things (hut hum; signing the Cares Act) it's great.
Sure you do, or you wouldn't defend him by screaming "You're a Democrat! You're a Democrat! Nanny nanny boo boo! You're a Democrat! Nyaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
Grow up.
You're Self-Projecting your own attitude that Democrats writing the Cares Act is GRRRRRRRRREAT!
By the way I had nothing but criticism for the CARES Act. All I got in response was excuses and insults from you and everyone else. Now you claim I support it? What a fucking liar you are.
Know what I haven't seen from any Trump defenders? Criticism for him deploying soldiers on domestic soil. No, all I see is you and others defending him with "You're a Democrat! Democrats did it first!" You're a bunch of pathetic children.
""Know what I haven't seen from any Trump defenders? Criticism for him deploying soldiers on domestic soil.""
It's been done before. To provide security to for nine people of color to attend high school.
In 2007 they had a 50th anniversary of it. And sent troops to represent.
""The nine Soldiers were hand picked by their battalion and brigade senior enlisted advisers, to take part in the event, which was held 50 years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent more than 11,500 101st Airborne Division Soldiers to Little Rock to ensure the safety of nine black students who wished to attend the then-all white Little Rock Central High School.""
https://www.army.mil/article/5038/101st_airborne_division_soldiers_escort_little_rock_nine_on_50th_anniversary
""Police are trained on when to get a warrant. ""
So it took 40 minutes for them to figure how to execute their training?
I agree that they should have gotten a warrant. One thing though, what would a warrant have changed? Case was hiding in a closet, surprised the Police Officer and got shot. A warrant would have changed nothing. Let's face it. A Judge or Magistrate is going to issue a warrant because there is no downside for them. There is a political downside if they DON'T issue a warrant. The bigger issue here is the Police's role in "wellness checks". Do they have one?
What would a warrant have changed?
Obeying the people's law over their government; which is pretty big in my book.
1. Forty minutes is also long enough to indicate that there is no "emergency".
2. How can a man crazy enough to (allegedly, on an unsupported statement) be contemplating suicide be determined to have "knowingly or purposefully caused . . ." anything?
3. I guess we need to remember to always lock the steel door, and bar the door with steel braces, and put grenade netting on all the windows, and hire armed guards.
Trumps tariffs might have caused this to happen
This may be an unpopular opinion on this site, but emergency services do need to be able to enter without a warrant. If I hear a cry for help from my elderly neighbor, or haven't seem them in awhile, I might call the police to do a welfare check. If that neighbor is having a medical emergency, they can't answer the door and they could die if police waited for a warrant. The trade off is that police can't use anything they see as evidence in a criminal prosecution. That's a reasonable compromise. It looks like that part of the compromise is the issue here.
Who was right or wrong in the police shooting should be treated as a totally separate issue.
Then send the fire department or EMTs. They will render aid. All police bring is violence.
That's just a sad perspective that they only bring violence. Especially after you cheered their violence against your enemies.
That would be more ideal, but sometimes police are on hand and EMTs are not.
Someone is dead because the police were on hand and the EMTs were not. It would have been better to wait for people whose job is to help, not do harm.
Would not the girlfriend calling the police count as probable cause? The idea that there was no reason for the police to come in is an odd framing.
You have a reasonable point about emergency services. The root problem is that we are expecting police to be both emergency services and law enforcement and those roles are arguably incompatible.
We mitigate that problem by more clearly segregating those roles. Enter without a warrant to respond to an emergency? Sure. Use the information you learn while in the house in a criminal investigation? Absolutely excluded. And that's exactly what this defendant is asking. He's not saying the police absolutely couldn't come in - he's saying they shouldn't have been allowed to use what they learned as the basis for a legal case against him.
I agree that the actual shooting is a completely different issue legally. I'll add that based on the facts here, the police should absolutely lose on that too.
Police have been both emergency services *and* law enforcement for over 200 yrs., the compatibility isn't really in contention.
Again, there is no criminal charge being filed against Case for "Being despondent in his own house with a gun." The case is for pointing a weapon at someone causing them to reasonably fear for their lives. An action that the 1A *and* 2A doesn't reasonably protect but that, for some reason in Root's stupidity, the 4A in this case is believed to.
The crux of the issue lies on whether the police reasonably announced themselves or their intentions the way any civilian would and in a manner that would lead them to reasonably believe that a gun pointed at them was a threat and not a misunderstanding. A point that Root's telling completely side steps.
Once again, it seems Reason has either run out of actual, libertarian no-knock raid/wrong address cases, given up on any pretext of Constitutional Republican libertarianism, or both. And that's without getting into the multiple national-level events that Reason is rather actively ignoring.
"Look! Look! I've got an excuse to violate the 4A!" /s
Welfare Checks! /s
Something, something about sacrificing liberty for security and getting neither one.
What you are saying has been established law for a long time.
This is dumb. Standard fare from Damon "I'm not a lawyer and I do a shitty job playing one on the internet." Root. Some two-bit shyster trying to diffuse blame and literally make a federal case out of a hard case.
Ctrl + f 'announce': 0 results.
Ctrl + f 'knock': 0 results.
Would you feel better little girl if he got despondent and pointed a gun at his girlfriend or someone else who wasn't a cop in a *public* alley? How about if it was an armed neighbor or relative doing a wellness check in his home? How about if Case voided his own brain pan in the closet upstairs? Does he have a 4A right to be secure in his persons and possessions then? What if instead of a pistol he used a razor or took some pills? Give us a time or policy specifying exactly how long are the cops supposed to wait to make sure he's dead and/or not a threat. Are you going to commit to that policy or is this the sort of thing where the next two-bit shyster will find a hard case where you policy doesn't work and we'll be right back here again?
Fuck the two-bit shyster and fuck Root.
This is an example of when sending a case manager instead of a cop would have likely had a better outcome.
How much would you charge personally, per hour, to go talk an armed person you don't know out of their house without a weapon on your person?
Or are you going to take a weapon with you and, if they point theirs at you or someone else, well... not even the 1A or 2A defend them from any consequence of that action?
Because for every inch of "Take names. Kick ass. High Speed Operator." police force delusions, there's pretty much an equal inch of "We can talk anyone off any ledge at any time." delusion. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the police force that can show up and sing whatever siren song that turns even the most vicious animal into a kitten is any less dangerous to a free people than the one that shows up and puts down vicious animals by declaration and superior force.
""How much would you charge personally, per hour, to go talk an armed person you don't know out of their house without a weapon on your person?""
About the same amount as a cop.
If the person escalates the violence then call the cops.
The cops may need to play a role, but not necessarily first contact.
"""We can talk anyone off any ledge at any time."
No. Nothing is perfect.
But we have seen too many times where cops are called to help, but shoot the person they were intended to help. Many of us here have said the worst thing you can do is call the cops.
Diplomats are better at keeping the peace than warriors. So why not give social workers a crack at it?
We can be sure that Alito, at any rate, will support Montana.
There is no 4A. Only a 2A. Everything depends on that. And if someone shoots or attempts to shoot or thinks about shooting a cop, then they better have damn good evidence that the cop is a tyrant or black or an immigrant or uses crazy pronouns or something like that. Otherwise, the cop is in the right because they know how to recognize bad guys.
Is this really bad sarcasm? Cops shoot innocent people all the time. What you are saying is the non-sarcastic MAGA position.
Let's add some real perspective to this rosy picture:
You might think that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" is oddly worded but clear enough in intent; your property is yours, and government needs a search warrant signed by a judge to trespass or search or seize your property. You'd be wrong. The Supreme Court made up the Open Fields Doctrine in 1924, ruling that fields around a house are not listed in that clause, and so not protected. Police have trespassed to set up cameras in hunting areas, with the courts' blessings, including convicting property owners who disabled or removed the cameras.
Another reminder that the Rule of Law is a myth, a fig leaf covering up the Rule of Men, that men interpret laws, and when it's government judges backing up government police and government prosecutors, their incentives do not line up with civilians.
You left something out of your formulation: "government needs a search warrant signed by a judge BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE!"
It's better than nothing even if the execution is flawed and our system wasn't perfect and has deteriorated since the Framers, but at least we have a solid bedrock of principle to fight for.
Call to Police, "My boyfriend wants to shoot himself!"
Police Response, "No worries. We'll do it for him. Hold my beer."
Seriously people. You've got to stop making excuses on how Gov 'Guns' are going to ?save? people from themselves. Individual Liberty (i.e. Freedom) is far more important than saving people from themselves.
Call to Police, "My boyfriend wants to shoot himself!"
Police Response, "No worries. We'll do it for him. Hold my beer."
That's about right.
I suppose those cops never heard of "Swatting?"
The penalty for cops searching without a warrant is that what they find is not admissible in court.
So when those cops were waiting 40 mins, they did not care about helping the person, only if they could use what they find to prosecute him. Shame on them.
"The penalty for cops searching without a warrant is that what they find is not admissible in court."
The proper response to illegal searches and seizures is to use the evidence anyway, but make sure the jury knows it was stolen and has a lousy chain of custody, and charge the cops criminally for their crimes. But that will never happen because government prosecutors and government judges look out for their fellow government employees.
Funny you think that's a penalty for the cops.
Penalty for the DA maybe.
"After debating among themselves for some 40 minutes about what do to next, the cops finally decided to enter without a warrant"
So, an emergency that went over forty minutes with nothing happening? Yup, all the emergencies I've been involved in during my rather lengthy career took at least forty minutes during which NOTHING WHATEVER was happening. Can you say, "Bullshit!" I knew you could!