Decision: Police may enter home if they detect a fight

UPDATED 4:30 p.m..

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that police without a warrant may enter a home if they have reason to believe an occupant has been seriously injured or is threatened “imminently” with such injury. This was the only decision of the day on an argued case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the opinion in Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart (05-502). The case involved police entry into a home in the Utah town in 2000, after being called there with a complaint about a loud party. Outside, they heard sounds that led them to conclude that a fight was going on. But they saw none when they initially looked into the windows. Going to a back window, they saw what they thought was a scuffle going on, with a punch being thrown. They opened a screen door, announced their presence, and entered, stepping between the combatants.

Arrests were made for disorderly conduct, drunkenness and contributing to a minor’s delinquency. Those accused sought to bar evidence of alcoholic consumption, on the ground that the police entry was unconstitutional. Utah courts found a violation. That was the result overturned by the Supreme Court Monday.

The Chief Justice’s opinion relied upon one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement — “the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” It declared: “Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.”

The Court refused to second-guess the officers’ personal motivation for entering. The individuals involved had contended that the officers actually were not so interested in protecting anyone, but rather entered to make arrests only. “Our cases have repeatedly rejected” that kind of subjective assessment, Roberts wrote. It did not matter, he said, “whether the officers entered the kitchen to arrest respondents and gather evidence against them or to assist the injured and prevent further violence.”

In addition, the Court did not dwell a length on whether the fight going on inside the house was serious enough to justify the police intrusion. “Here, the officers were confronted with ongoing violence occurring within the home,” so “we think the officers’ entry was plainly reasonable under the circumstances….The officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that theviolence in the kitchen was just beginning.”

In a pithy summation, of the kind that is becoming typical in Roberts’ opinions, the Chief Justice wrote: “The role of a police officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided.”

Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the opinion, but filed a brief concurring opinion arguing that the Court should never have taken the time to consider this “odd flyspeck of a case.”