Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)
Primary Holding
Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury, as established by the emergency aid doctrine.
In the case of Brigham City v. Stuart, police officers entered a home without a warrant because they believed someone inside was seriously hurt during a fight. This ruling is important because it allows police to act quickly in emergencies to protect people, even if they don't have a warrant. Consumers should know that if police believe someone is in immediate danger, they can enter a home without permission, which can help keep people safe in urgent situations.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the early morning hours of July 23, 2000, a disturbance occurred at a residence in Brigham City, Utah, prompting four police officers to respond to a call about a loud party. Upon arrival at approximately 3 a.m., the officers heard shouting and observed two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. As they approached, they witnessed a violent altercation inside the home, where four adults were struggling to restrain a juvenile who had just struck one of the adults in the face, causing the adult to bleed. Concerned for the safety of those involved, one officer opened a screen door, announced their presence, and entered the kitchen, where the fight ceased upon the occupants realizing the police were there. The officers subsequently arrested several individuals for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. Following the arrests, the respondents filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the officers entered the home, claiming that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Brigham City then appealed to the Supreme Court of Utah, arguing that the officers' entry was justified under the emergency aid doctrine and the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. However, the Supreme Court of Utah rejected these arguments, concluding that the injury from the juvenile's punch did not create an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside the home was in serious danger, and that the officers had acted primarily in a law enforcement capacity rather than to provide assistance. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, where the central issue was whether police could enter a home without a warrant if they had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant was seriously injured or threatened with injury. The Supreme Court's decision would clarify the application of the emergency aid doctrine and the exigent circumstances exception in the context of warrantless entries by law enforcement.
Whether police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 24, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 US 586 (2006)
Consumer LostThe violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule does not require the suppression of evidence obtained during a search conducted pursuant to a valid warrant.
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)
Consumer LostThe use of handcuffs to detain an individual during the execution of a search warrant is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, provided that the detention is reasonable under the circumstances, and questioning about immigration status during such detention does not constitute a separate Fourth Amendment violation.
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)
Consumer WonStatements made to law enforcement during a 911 call are considered "testimonial" and thus subject to the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when they are made with the primary purpose of establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to a criminal prosecution.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)
Consumer WonA warrantless search of shared premises is unreasonable and invalid if one co-occupant is present and expressly refuses consent, even if another co-occupant provides consent for the search.