Today, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Case v. Montana, concerning when police officers can enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid to someone inside. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that officers do not need probable cause that an emergency exists before doing so, but merely “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” their entry is needed.

The Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity filed a brief in the case urging the Court to preserve the sanctity of the home and reduce the risks that warrantless entries pose to both residents and law enforcement. Following the decision, Matthew Cavedon, Director of Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice, said the following:

“Every man’s home is his castle under the Fourth Amendment. The Court declined to hold that the familiar probable cause standard is the moat protecting it. However, today’s decision also rightly clarified that home entries should not be undertaken lightly. Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion echoed our concerns about the dangers entries can pose, highlighting the needs of people experiencing mental health crises. And Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion reiterated that emergency aid entries are not an excuse to search for evidence of criminal activity. Hopefully, today’s decision will not be read more broadly than the Court intended.”

Find Cavedon’s previous work on this case below:

To speak with Cavedon further on today’s decision in Case v. Montana, contact Christopher Tarvardian.