Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed 9-0 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.  

William Case had called his girlfriend telling her that he was going to kill himself, that he  sounded “erratic” because he had probably been drinking, that he had past mental health issues,  and that he had earlier attempted “suicide by cop.” Case then told the girlfriend that he would  shoot any responding law enforcement, but the girlfriend heard a clicking that she believed was  the cocking of a gun, and a “pop” followed by “just dead air.” The girlfriend called 911. 

Officers responded, knocked on the house doors, yelled into an open window, and could  see through a window, empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad with writing  on it. Case did not respond. Officers called a supervisor. After 40 minutes and discussions of  the possible scenarios, officers entered the house without a search warrant.  

While in the house, one of the officers encountered Case hiding in a closet. Case threw  open the closet curtain and appeared to the officer to be holding “black object” that looked like a  gun. Fearing Case was going to shoot, the officer shot Case. A handgun was recovered near  Case.  

Case recovered from his wound and was criminally charged with assaulting the police  officer. Prior to trial, Case moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the officers’ home entry, arguing that the police needed, but did not have, probable cause to enter his house.  The trial court denied suppression, and the Montana Supreme Court agreed. The Big Court  agreed to review Case’s probable cause question, and last week Case lost his argument. 

Because such “emergency assistance” calls are not criminal investigations, the Court  declined to use the better-known criminal suspicion standards of “reasonable suspicion” and  “probable cause.” Instead, the justices said that what they first held in 2006 in Brigham City v.  Stewart was still sufficient today. “Brigham City’s reasonableness standard means just what it  says, with no further gloss . . . Rather, Brigham City formulated its own standard for dealing with  household emergencies—again, whether an officer has ‘an objectively reasonable basis for  believing’ that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such harm.” 

The justices reminded us that an emergency-aid entry “provides no basis to search the  premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining  officers’ safety.” And, that “[t]he 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.”  

One last note: Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion (meaning that she agreed  with the Court’s opinion but wanted to add some thoughts). No other justice joined her concurring opinion, but what she brings up is important to think about. The justice said that

“when an officer is called to respond to a person at risk of suicide, however, entering the house  may not always be the objectively reasonable course of action to ‘preserve life or avoid serious  injury’ . . . [because][s]tudies show that individuals 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 . . . [and][o]nce the decision is made to enter,  moreover, the ‘manner’ of the officers’ entry and their subsequent conduct inside must also be  reasonable.” 

Colin