High Court Affirms Emergency-Aid Exception to Warrant Rule (1)

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday reaffirmed the standard for when law enforcement may enter a person’s home without a warrant in order to render emergency aid.

“Brigham City’s reasonableness standard means just what it says, with no further gloss,” Justice Elena Kagan said for the unanimous court.

In this case, the reasonableness standard was satisfied because police had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that a homeowner intended to and may have taken his own life, she said.

In Brigham City v. Stuart, the high court previously held that a warrantless entry was constitutional because officers had an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing someone inside needed immediate assistance. Brigham remains good law, Kagan said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil M. Gorsuch authored separate concurring opinions.

Sotomayor said she wrote separately to discuss what law enforcement and courts should consider when assessing whether an objectively reasonable basis exists.

Studies show that individuals with serious mental-health conditions are disproprotionately likely to be injured and seven times more likely to be killed during police interactions compared to the general public, she said. Therefore, in some circumstances, it may be more reasonable for law enforcement to try different means of de-escalation before entering a home, such as speaking with an occupant from a distance or over the phone, Sotomayor said.

The objectively reasonable basis test “demands careful attention to the case-specific risks that attend mental-health crises,” she said, “and requires officers to act reasonably in response.”

Gorsuch said the high court’s decision accords with the common law, which has generally allowed a private citizen to enter another person’s house and property in order to avert serious physical harm. The common law, he said, has provided that police generally enjoy the same legal privileges as private citizens.

Petitioner William Trevor Case argued that law enforcement must have probable cause to believe someone is in need of urgent help in order to make a warrantless entry into someone’s home on emergency aid grounds.

Montana countered that Case’s insistence on probable cause would eviscerate the emergency-aid exception and subject vulnerable people to avoidable harm.

Officers arrived at Case’s home in September 2021 after his ex-girlfriend requested a welfare check. She told the 911 dispatcher that he’d threatened suicide and had a loaded gun. She’d told the dispatcher she heard a pop over the phone with him before the line went silent.

Case was known to law enforcement, and the responding officers were aware that he had a history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues. He’d attempted suicide previously and been combative with law enforcement.

As a result of their prior interactions, the officers conducting the welfare check discussed the possibility that Case might attempt to initiate “suicide by cop.”

What they observed at the scene through a window seemed to corroborate his girlfriend’s concern. They saw an empty gun holster and a pad of paper with what appeared to be a suicide note. About 18 minutes later, they entered Case’s home.

An officer shot Case once in the abdomen after Case jumped out of a closet holding a dark object that appeared to be a weapon. Bodycam footage later confirmed that it was.

Case was subsequently charged with assaulting a police officer.

Case is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, Hull Swingley & Betchie PC, and Nathan D. Ellis of Helena, Mont.

The case is Case v. Montana, U.S., No. 24-624, 1/14/26.