Photo Credit: Devallis Rutledge, The “Emergency Aid Doctrine,” Police Magazine, February 5, 2010, https://www.policemag.com/articles/the-emergency-aid-doctrine.
Authored by: Elizabeth Mojica
In 2006, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers with an “objectively reasonably basis for believing” someone inside a home requires emergency assistance, may enter without a warrant.[1] Roughly twenty years later, the Court provided some clarity on the emergency aid exception.[2]
In Case v. Montana, William Case called his ex-girlfriend, J.H., and threatened suicide while methodically detailing his next steps before going silent.[3] Prior to the silence, however, J.H. heard clicking and popping, from which she assumed Case had shot himself. [4] J.H. called the police and drove to Case’s home where three police officers met her.[5] The police officers were aware of Case’s alcohol abuse, mental health issues, previously threated and attempted suicides, and the details of his call with J.H.[6] Under these circumstances, the police officers requested the chief of police.[7]
During the forty minutes it took for the chief to arrive, the officers “circled the house looking for signs of injury or danger” and attempted to get a response from Case by knocking and yelling.[8] While they did not see Case, they did see “empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad with a writing on it.”[9] Once the chief arrived, the officers weighed the implications of entering, both for themselves and for Case.[10] While the officers considered the possibility of the situation escalating because of their entrance, the circumstances suggested “that Case had already shot himself” and may be injured inside of the home.[11]
Meanwhile, Case was inside the home “hiding in the closet of a bedroom upstairs.”[12] Once an officer entered, Case abruptly opened the closet and appeared while holding what appeared to be a gun.”[13] Case was shot, had first aid administered, and later recovered at a nearby hospital.[14] In the home, “the officers found a handgun in a laundry basket next to the place where Case had stood.”[15]
Case was charged with “assaulting a police officer” but moved to suppress evidence by arguing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police officers entered his home without a warrant.[16]
In welcoming yet another exception to the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment, the Court recognized the “sanctity of the home” by noting the police officers’ entry grants “no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers’ safety.”[17] However, this emergency aid exception only requires the officers have an “objectively reasonably basis,” not probable cause, that there’s an emergency.[18]
Justice Sotomayor highlighted the distinction between police officers entering to deal with an emergency as opposed to entering under other circumstances.[19] Justice Sotomayor stated the “manner . . . and their subsequent conduct” must also be reasonable when entering someone’s home to deal with an emergency.[20] Accordingly, what may lead officers to have an objectively reasonably basis for believing someone needs emergency assistance will vary depending on the circumstances of each situation.[21] As Justice Sotomayor illustrated, alternative de-escalation methods may be a more appropriate approach when the officers’ entry is more likely to escalate the situation, particularly in situations where someone is experiencing a mental health crisis.[22]
Justice Gorsuch defended the Court’s decision by emphasizing two key points.[23] First, the exception grants police officers entry to address the emergency, not to “search a home more broadly.”[24] Additionally, Justice Gorsuch emphasized the long-standing belief “that property rights give way to concern for human safety.”[25]
Overall, the Court’s objective standard aims to limit the breath of the emergency aid exception. However, just like many others, this exception is subject to abuse. Previously, some courts required a showing of probable cause for the exception to be implicated.[26] Despite clarifying a lower objectively reasonable standard applies, the Court’s decision carefully leaves ample room for states to impose greater limitations.
[1] Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 400 (2006).
[2] See generally Case v. Montana, 146 S. Ct. 500 (2026) (“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.’”).
[3] Id. at 503.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 504.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Case, 146 S. Ct. at 504.
[14] Id. at 504.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 507.
[18] Id. at 508.
[19] Id. at 510 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 511.
[22] Id. at 511.
[23] Id. at 512 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
[24] Case, 146 S. Ct. at 512 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
[25] Id.
[26] See id. at 505 (“[C]ourts have differed on whether police officers entering a home to provide emergency aid need ‘probable cause’ to believe that an occupant is in peril.”).
American Journal of Trial Advocacy 