Brigham City v. Stuart
Issues
Whether officers who entered a private home because they believed a fight was occurring inside violated the Fourth Amendment, or are the officers protected under either the emergency aid exception or the exigency exception.
The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion by prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant. Two related exceptions to this rule are relevant in this case: the emergency aid exception and the exigent circumstance exception. This case will help define the type of conduct that must occur in order for an officer to validly invoke either the exigent circumstance or the emergency aid exception. The Court’s decision will help sharpen the line between permissible and impermissible police involvement and define the level of protection individuals continue to have under the Fourth Amendment.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
1. Does the "emergency aid exception" to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), 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 Fourth Amendment, the officers' entry into the home to stop the fight?
On July 23, 2001, at approximately 3:00 a.m., four Brigham City, Utah police officers were dispatched to respond to a complaint about a loud party. Brief for Petitioner at 2.
Additional Resources
- CRS Annotated Constitution: 4th Amendment - Search and Seizure