Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, Charles, et al. (05/22/2006)

Questions presented: (1) Does the "emergency aid exception" to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, turn on an officer's subjective motivation for entering the home? (2) Was the gravity of the "emergency" or "exigency" sufficient to justify, under the 4th Amendment, the officer's entry into the home to stop the flight?

BY SETH GOLDSTEIN, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Officer Jeff Johnson of the Brigham City, Utah police department didn't think entering a home to stop a fight he observed from outside was illegal.

Johnson, along with three other officers, was responding to a complaint of a loud party at 3 a.m. on July 23, 2001.

From the driveway, Johnson apparently observed two underage males drinking alcohol and entered the backyard to get a better view inside the house.

Peering through the back windows and a screen door, Johnson observed four adults restraining a teenager against a refrigerator. The teenager broke free and punched one of the adults in the face, and Johnson and another officer decided to enter the house without a search warrant.

The officers arrested all four adults, including Charles Stuart, Shayne Taylor and Sandra Taylor, on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct and intoxication.

Prosecutors believed they had an open-and-shut case: Police officers observed the fight, and the three named individuals were found to be intoxicated. But Judge Clint Judkins of the First District Court of Cache County, Utah, suppressed all the evidence found at the house.

The fourth adult was convicted of all charges in a separate trial in which all the evidence was admitted.

Michael Studebaker, the attorney representing Stuart, Shayne Taylor and Sandra Taylor, argued that the police officers' entry into the house was an illegal, warrantless search. He said the officers did not observe a situation that demanded immediate medical attention or police involvement, two exceptions that allow police to enter a home without a search warrant.

Prosecutors appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, and later to the Utah Supreme Court. Assistant Utah Attorney General Jeffrey Gray, representing Brigham City, argued before the Utah Supreme Court that the officers' warrantless search did not violate the 4th Amendment.

He argued that in the situation, both the emergency aid and exigent circumstance exceptions superseded the need for a search warrant to enter the home. had an opportunity to help a person in need of medical assistance and to prevent further injury from occurring. However, both courts upheld the trial court's decision.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that the emergency aid doctrine did not make the search legal. As to exigent circumstances, the vote was closer, though nonetheless, the court ruled 3-2 that exigent circumstances did not permit the warrantless search either.

In his opinion, Justice Ronald Nehring wrote that the home is a domain where the security of the 4th Amendment is especially protective. He wrote that people in a home are more protected against a warrantless search than in any other location.

"[The inhabitants] may well choose to expose themselves to greater actual or potential harm to preserve their right to be left alone in their homes," Nehring wrote. "They may even engage in acts that meet the legal definition of assault, thereby creating probable cause, but that does not create an exigent circumstance authorizing a warrantless intrusion."

Justice Matthew Durrant wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion in which he outlined his view that exigent circumstances were present in the situation.

"The Fourth Amendment does not prescribe paralysis when law enforcement officials are eyewitnesses to an ongoing assault and immediate intervention is necessary to prevent physical harm," he wrote. "The officers were justified in entering the residence because…they possessed both probable cause that a continuing assault was being committed within the residence and a reasonable belief that an immediate entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to others."

The Utah Attorney General petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to have the high court clarify what degree of harm or injury is necessary before officers can make a warrantless home entry.

"There was a real possibility that an argument could get worse and you just don't know," Gray said. "The officers are on the spot in the heat of the moment and they don't know how it's going to resolve itself. They would've been derelict in their duty if they didn't enter the home."

But Studebaker, representing Stuart and the Taylors, said police officers cannot allow their subjective motivations to determine how to handle a situation within a home. He said he believes officers must adhere to a strict procedure when confronting "only a struggle" inside a house.

"It is our belief that the determination of entering a home without a warrant can't be left up to an officer's subjective read on a situation," Studebaker said.

Studebaker cited the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling in Mincey v. Arizona that a warrantless search of a murder scene was unconstitutional. At the time of the search, no immediate danger existed to allow a warrantless search because the murder had already occurred, the Court held.

But Gray said Mincey helps support his case for Brigham City because at the time of the officers' warrantless search, they witnessed a situation in which emergency aid or police intervention was necessary.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the Court accepted review in the case, and on May 22, the Court sided unanimously with Brigham City, holding that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that under the circumstances, "the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment required them to wait until another blow rendered someone 'unconscious' or 'semi-conscious' or worse before entering. The role of a peace 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."