Supreme Court to hear arguments in case tied to Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could impact what’s needed for law enforcement to enter your home - without a search warrant.

October 15th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in “Case v. Montana”, a case that asks the question: can law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring?

The Fourth Amendment says officers can’t enter a private residence without a search warrant, unless it’s to render emergency aid. But the question is: how sure do they have to be that there’s an actual emergency?

According to Matthew Cavedon with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, “Case v. Montana asks the question of how much evidence officers need that some sort of emergency is afoot before they can enter into somebody’s house without a warrant.... whatever the outcome is, it’s going to set a constitutional standard for police behavior throughout the entire United States.”

Cavedon has been following the situation of William Trevor Case, a man living in Montana who’s ex-girlfriend called police saying she believed he had a gun and was about to commit suicide.

Officers entered Case’s home without a search warrant saying they believed there was enough of an emergency to justify entry.

But the question now ahead of the Court is what is enough: “probable cause”, or proof of a likely situation; or just “reasonable suspicion”, what Cavedon calls more of an eyebrow raise or a hunch.

“Historically,” Cavedon said, “it’s not been a good enough reason to enter into someone’s house.”

That’s where the state of Montana comes in, the respondent in this case, saying setting a higher threshold in an emergency could mean life or death.

Montana Solicitor General Chrisitan Corrigan argues officers need to be able to do their job, and always proving probable cause and waiting for a judge sometimes isn’t fast enough in an emergency situation.

“When officers respond to these sometimes very tricky situations and have to act on less than perfect information,” Corrigan said, “they simply have to act reasonably... if the standard is set too high, they simply won’t be able to act.”

But supporters of Case disagree, including the Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“How can an officer say we need to actually enter your home to get more information?” asks Kufere Laing, an appellate associate representing MACDL.

Laing points out that in some instances, lowering the threshold for emergency aid could actually be more dangerous for both the homeowner and police. For William Trevor Case, his welfare check ended with him being shot and charged with assault of a peace officer after police believed he was trying to harm them or posed a threat to their safety.

“How do we prevent that encounter in the first place?” asks Laing. “The officer doesn’t get to go into someone’s home…. without probable cause.”

A decision in Case v. Montana is expected later this year.