Case v. Montana
Before Case v. Montana, the U.S. Court of Appeals had differed on whether police officers entering a home to provide emergency aid needed to establish "probable cause" to justify entry. For example, the civil case of Estate of Chamberlain v. White Plains (2020) involved White Plains Police officers who were accused of unlawful entry and excessive force in an attempt to help a civilian inside his apartment. In that case, the Second Circuit ruled that a mere "possibility of danger" is not enough and that probable cause was needed for entry. By contrast, the First Circuit in Hill v. Walsh (2018) ruled that only a reasonable basis was needed when someone needed emergency aid.
Although Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) established an “objectively reasonable basis" standard for warrantless entry in administering emergency aid, it left unresolved whether that standard requires probable cause. Therefore, Case v. Montana addressed this question by examining whether the Brigham City standard, known as the Emergency-Aid Exception, meant that officers must have probable cause for warrantless intrusions in emergencies.
Facts of the Case
In September of 2021, William Trevor Case’s former girlfriend, J.H., received an alarming call from Case, claiming “he was going to kill himself.” As much as J.H. tried to “reel him back” by trying to talk Case out of committing suicide, the call concluded with a “clicking” that sounded like the “cock[ing of] a gun,” a “pop,” and then just “dead air.” After Case became unresponsive, J.H. dialed 9-1-1 to report the incident and drove to his residence.
Three police officers arrived at Case’s house for a welfare check. They were aware of Case’s history of alcohol and mental health issues, as well as the fact that he had previously attempted a “suicide-by-cop” — law-enforcement-assisted suicide by provocation — at a former school he worked at. After receiving no response to knocking on the door and calling through the window, the police chief who arrived at the scene decided that they should enter the house “to render emergency aid.” With their weapons drawn, the officers went inside.
While clearing the house, Sergeant Pasha found Case hiding in a bedroom closet holding a gun-like “black object.” Fearing that he was about to be shot, the officer fired his own gun and shot Case in the abdomen. A handgun was subsequently found in a laundry basket next to where Case had stood.
Procedural History
Case was charged with assault on a peace officer and moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless home entry. Here, suppression refers to the legal process of barring illegally obtained evidence from use in a criminal trial under the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule. The Montana state district court denied Case’s motion, reasoning that the officers were responding to an emergency and therefore did not need a warrant. Later, a jury trial in December 2022 found Case guilty of the charged offense.
On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court was divided on whether the officer’s entry was lawful. The majority analyzed the issue under the Community Caretaker Doctrine, which is a legal exception to the warrant requirement that allows officers to make warrantless stops to assist someone in need or protect public safety (established in Cady v. Dombrowski (1973)). While Cady's ruling limited the exception to motor vehicles on public highways, the Montana Supreme Court relied heavily on a localized expansion of the Community Caretaker concept and applied it to homes. Seeing that the facts met a reasonable suspicion of suicide, the Montana Supreme Court ultimately upheld the lower court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari — a formal order for the lower courts to send up the record of a case for review — to evaluate whether an officer needs “probable cause” to believe a person is in danger before entering civilian homes without a warrant.
Brigham City Test Precedent
The Fourth Amendment requires that officers must present sufficient facts establishing probable cause before a warrant may be issued to enter a home. However, the Supreme Court in Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) established an exception: officers may enter a home without a warrant if there is a reasonable belief that emergency aid is needed.
In Brigham City, officers had entered a home after watching a physical altercation between an adolescent and several adults. The Court there unanimously approved such entry as “reasonable” under the circumstances. In a similar case, Michigan v. Fisher (2009), the Court applied the Brigham City emergency aid exception after a neighbor reported finding a scene of violence and danger.
Based on the precedent set by the two decisions, Case does not argue that the emergency aid justification did not apply; rather, he attempts to argue that the Brigham City Test requires “probable cause” in recognition of the “sanctity of the home.”
Holding
Historically, the “probable cause” standard is rooted primarily in the context of criminal investigations. Had the Court accepted Case’s invitation, the resulting body of law would fit awkwardly in the non-criminal, non-investigatory setting at issue. If the officers were concerned about attaining probable cause before entering, there was the possibility they would not have acted quickly enough to save Case had he actually shot himself. Therefore, when officers are not seeking evidence of a crime but are trying to prevent escalating danger, the Fourth Amendment's emergency doctrine permits officers to act on a reasonable basis rather than requiring traditional probable cause.
The Court also emphasized that an emergency-aid entry does not provide a basis to search the home beyond what is reasonable to address the emergency. This limitation is evident when Case is compared with Caniglia v. Strom. In Caniglia, after Caniglia had been sent away to the psychiatric hospital, law enforcement searched his home and seized his firearms. Unlike the immediate emergency confronting the officers in Case, the circumstances in Caniglia no longer presented an emergency to justify a search, especially on an investigatory basis. The Supreme Court in Caniglia considered this case under the community caretaker doctrine; however, it rejected that the doctrine provided an independent exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Although Caniglia involved a different Fourth Amendment doctrine, this case illustrated the Court's effort to distinguish between legitimate caretaking or emergency functions and an unlimited authority to search a home. Thus, while officers may respond to genuine emergencies, their actions inside a home must still be within a reasonable scope.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Montana Supreme Court's judgment.
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, while also underscoring the unique consideration that law enforcement should bear in mind when it comes to assessing a person experiencing a mental health crisis. The presence of law enforcement can sometimes escalate the situation rather than mitigate it, which can potentially place all parties at greater risk. Studies indicate that individuals with serious mental health issues are disproportionately likely to be hurt during police interactions compared to the general public. Thus, Sotomayor urges that law enforcement try to find different means of de-escalation before entering the homes of people suffering a mental health crisis. She offers several examples, including attempting to communicate with the occupant from a distance, contacting friends and family, or calling specialized police units and negotiators to help intervene.
Sotomayor also argues that the circumstances of the case suggested that Case did not actually need emergency aid, but was instead trying to provoke a confrontation that would result in a "suicide-by-cop." The officers knew about Case's history of attempting "suicide-by-cop" in the past and even discussed that it was likely the situation again. Therefore, Sotomayor argues that these facts should have informed the officers' assessment of whether Case actually required emergency assistance and whether entry was necessary. This does not mean Sotomayor rejected the principle that officers may enter homes without a warrant when there is an objectively reasonable basis to believe that emergency intervention is needed. Rather, her concurrence identifies facts that, in her view, would undermine the officers' belief that intervention inside the home was required. Ultimately, Sotomayor uses the present case as an example for future law enforcement to take carefully into account the risks of entry and pursue alternative methods of de-escalation when responding to mental health crises.
Justice Gorsuch also concurs, arguing that the emergency aid exception aligns with history. Common law has generally permitted a private citizen to enter another person’s house to prevent serious physical harm. Given that a police officer enjoys the same legal privileges as a private citizen, law enforcement may use their best judgment to avert crisis on another’s property.
Conclusion
With criminal undertones behind probable cause, applying this interpretation may cause a simple life-or-death situation to be viewed with suspicion rather than exigency. When someone’s life is on the line, this legally required scrutiny and doubt may cost them their life. Therefore, Case v. Montana’s holding against probable cause ensures that officers do not fear legal repercussions for carrying out their duties. The Fourth Amendment does not require emergency workers to leave endangered people to their fates.