Supreme Court sides with Montana police on warrant requirements during emergencies

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Montana police acted lawfully when entering a home without a warrant during a potential emergency, establishing important precedent for law enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless entries in crisis situations.

In the case involving William Case, who was shot and wounded by officers in 2021, the Court affirmed police had reasonable grounds to enter his residence after receiving a distress call from his former girlfriend who feared he might have committed suicide.

Officers arrived at Case’s home and knocked repeatedly without response. Concerned about his welfare based on the girlfriend’s report, they entered the residence. During their welfare check, Case suddenly emerged from behind a closet curtain holding what appeared to be a gun, prompting an officer to fire. Court documents indicate a handgun was later recovered from a nearby laundry basket.

Following the incident, Case was charged with assaulting an officer. His defense team sought to have evidence suppressed, arguing that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering without a warrant. The Montana Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling officers needed only “reasonable suspicion” that someone inside required emergency assistance.

Case then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that police be held to a higher “probable cause” standard in such situations—similar to what’s required in criminal investigations.

In the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the justices clarified that while the Montana Supreme Court’s “reasonable suspicion” standard was too low, the officers’ actions were nevertheless “objectively reasonable” under existing Supreme Court precedent, specifically the emergency aid exception to warrant requirements.

“When police reasonably believe someone inside a home needs immediate aid, they don’t need to delay their response to obtain a warrant,” explained Justice Kagan in the opinion. She emphasized that such emergency entries don’t give police carte blanche for searches beyond what’s necessary to render assistance and ensure officer safety.

The ruling reinforces the Court’s longstanding recognition of exceptions to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements in emergency situations while providing clearer guidance to law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Legal experts note this decision maintains a careful balance between public safety concerns and constitutional protections. The emergency aid exception has long been recognized by courts, allowing police to enter homes without warrants when they have reasonable grounds to believe someone inside is in danger or needs immediate assistance.

“This ruling provides important clarity for police departments across the country,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. “Officers often make split-second decisions in potential emergency situations, and this opinion acknowledges that reality while still requiring objective reasonableness.”

The case highlights ongoing tensions between privacy rights and public safety concerns that have characterized Fourth Amendment jurisprudence for decades. While the Court has generally required warrants for home entries, it has carved out specific exceptions for emergencies, hot pursuit of suspects, and imminent destruction of evidence.

Civil liberties advocates, while acknowledging the need for emergency exceptions, have expressed concerns about potential overreach. “The key is ensuring that these emergency entries remain the exception rather than becoming a routine way to circumvent warrant requirements,” noted Rebecca Glenberg of the American Civil Liberties Union.

For police departments, the ruling offers reassurance that good-faith efforts to protect lives during emergencies will receive judicial support, provided officers maintain reasonable standards and limit their actions to addressing the immediate crisis.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case continues its careful calibration of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, acknowledging both the sanctity of the home and the practical realities faced by law enforcement when lives may be at risk.