Case v. Montana

    Issues

    Do police officers need to show probable cause to enter a home without a warrant to render emergency aid, or is reasonable suspicion that an emergency is occurring sufficient?

    Oral argument:
    October 15, 2025
    Court below:
    Montana Supreme Court

     

    This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if police officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they enter a home without a warrant but with a reasonable belief that an emergency is occurring, rather than probable cause. William Trevor Case argues that the framers’ intent and America’s commitment to privacy demand extending the probable cause standard from criminal searches to warrantless entries under the emergency aid exception. In response, the State of Montana argues that the plain text of the Fourth Amendment suggests that probable cause is not required to make a warrantless entry during a potential emergency. The case touches upon important questions regarding the balance between public safety and privacy interests.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.

    Facts

    The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches of their homes. 

    On September 27, 2021, Montana law enforcement responded to William Trevor Case’s home after receiving a report from Case’s ex-girlfriend that Case had threatened to commit suicide.   Case’s ex-girlfriend reported that she heard a “pop” while on the phone and was concerned Case shot himself. She also reported that Case threatened to harm any police who engaged with him.  Police had prior knowledge of Case’s mental health struggles and a history of suicidal behavior.  When police arrived at Case’s home, they saw a note and an empty gun holster through the window.  Forty minutes after their arrival, police decided to enter Case’s home to provide aid.  The police officers opened the unlocked door and loudly announced their presence as they entered Case’s home. One police officer found Case inside a closet curtain and saw what they thought was a “dark object” near Case’s waist.  The officer shot Case, and the police later found a handgun lying next to Case.  Case was later charged with Assault on a Peace Officer on the basis that Case “knowingly or purposely caused reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury” when Case pointed what appeared to be a pistol at a police officer.  Case filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the search on the grounds that the search was an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Third Judicial District Court, Deer Lodge County denied Case’s pretrial motion to suppress. The jury found Case guilty. 

    Case appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. On appeal, the state supreme court considered Case’s argument that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The state supreme court acknowledged that warrantless entry into someone’s home is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but explained that the court had adopted some exceptions to this rule. The state supreme court explained that exigent circumstances and probable cause of a criminal violation allow warrantless searches, in line with the Fourth Amendment.  Alternatively, a warrantless search is not a violation under the community caretaker doctrine, which allows the police to intervene in noncriminal situations on private property when a citizen needs help. The court expanded that when acting under the caretaker doctrine, the police’s entry only needs to be reasonable. Here, the court concluded that the facts constituted a finding that a reasonable police officer could have suspected that a citizen required help. The state supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision. 

    Case petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted on June 2, 2025.

    Analysis

    WHAT LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IS REQUIRED

    Case argues that for officers to make a warrantless entry into a home in a noncriminal emergency, they must have probable cause to believe that an emergency is occurring.Case first asserts that even under an exigent circumstances exception, this Court has previously explained that probable cause is the only appropriate legal standard.  Case maintains that an exigency exception applies when police have an objectively reasonable basis for intervening.  Case suggests further that the “objectively reasonable basis” standard that the Court has used previously is in effect the same standard as probable cause. Case explains that there is no separation between officers operating in a criminal investigatory capacity and a caretaker capacity. As an example, Case argues that in Camara v. Municipal Court, probable cause was the correct standard for the noncriminal context of enforcing a health code administrative warrant.  Case further explains that probable cause is not limited only to situations involving criminal investigations.  Case asserts that the lower court erred in applying the community caretaking doctrine as a standalone justification for entry into his home.Case argues that there must be an objective basis for invoking a separate warrant exception to enter someone’s home for noncriminal reasons. Case also asserts that the common law foundation of the Fourth Amendment supports a probable cause standard for warrantless entries even under emergency situations.  Case maintains that officers at common law could only enter without a warrant when they personally observed a violent situation.

    Montana argues that officers do not require probable cause before entering someone’s home in emergency situations. Montana argues instead that the probable cause standard applies only to criminal investigations. Montana further argues that probable cause involves the possibility of finding criminal activity. Montana maintains that underlying all definitions of probable cause is a belief that the individual may be guilty of some crime.  Montana argues that removing criminality from the probable cause analysis undermines the very foundation of probable cause, which rests on the existence of a criminal violation. Montana explains that “objective reasonable basis” and probable cause are distinct terms and therefore do not prescribe the same standard.  Montana also rejects Case’s assertion that Camara involved a noncriminal situation, emphasizing instead that code violations are criminal situations because a refusal to allow an inspection is a crime in and of itself.  Montana therefore asserts that probable cause is not required in a noncriminal situation.  Montana instead argues that this case is more like Caniglia v. Strom, which involved a suicidal man who was not in the house at all during the warrantless search.  Montana argues that the emergency exigency exception is not limited when officers reasonably believe that someone inside the house needs medical aid. Montana argues that it is not true that an officer at common law could only enter a home after they had personally seen a violent situation.  Montana points out that officers neglect their duty if they do not do everything they can to get a suspect, even when the violent situation occurs outside the officer’s view.  

    DID THE POLICE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE

    Case argues that the police in this case did not have probable cause to enter Case’s home. Therefore, Case argues, the police conducted an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Case asserts that the police did not have the requisite probable cause, namely, a belief of serious injury or imminent threat of injury.  Case explains that while preventing suicide can be a valid reason for police to make a warrantless entry into the home, in this situation, there was not enough surrounding evidence for the police to make that determination.  Here, Case argues, all the police knew was that Case had a history of suicidal threats, and the police’s knowledge of prior suicide attempts was not sufficient for providing probable cause. Case argues further that the police’s knowledge of Case’s previous attempts to commit “suicide by cop” suggests that the only danger of a potential suicide would be caused by the police entering the home and not prevented by it.  Case argues that the police therefore lacked probable cause to believe there was an imminent threat of suicide. Instead, Case maintains, a potential emergency situation could only occur if the police entered the house. 

    Montana contends that even if this Court were to adopt the test that stripped the prerequisite requirement of criminality from emergency-aid exigent situations, the police nevertheless had the requisite probable cause to enter the home. Montana continues that this new probable cause standard would only look to see if the person in question was in imminent danger and in need of help.  Under this new test, Montana explains, the only question for this Court to answer would be, given the totality of the circumstances, whether there was a fair probability that there was an imminent risk of danger for the person.  Montana argues that the lower court made the final determination on whether the facts satisfied this relatively low burden.  The Montana Supreme Court considered several factors, including evidence of an injury, an empty gun holster, empty alcohol cans, and a note.  These objective facts, Montana emphasizes, were sufficient to confirm the officer’s probable belief that Case was in the house, was suicidal (the empty gun holster), was drunk (the presence of empty alcohol cans), and had written a suicide note.  Montana concludes that, based on these objective facts, the lower court correctly determined that the police officers had met their burden of demonstrating a fair probability of an emergency that justified conducting the search in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. 

    Discussion

    PUBLIC SAFETY IN EMERGENCY AID SITUATIONS

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and others (collectively “NACDL”), in support of Case, argue that requiring officers to show probable cause will not prevent first responders from providing emergency aid because police carrying out the most common types of home welfare checks (fires, domestic abuse, overdoses, and medical emergencies) generally have probable cause that emergency aid is necessary before they enter a home.NACDL asserts that in the rare case that police do not already have probable cause to enter a home, the increased standard would provide an incentive to corroborate their belief that entry is necessary, perhaps by interviewing neighbors and gathering observational evidence to establish probable cause.  The Rutherford Institute further contends that, particularly in emergency situations, finding the requisite probable cause is not an especially burdensome standard and will therefore not compromise the ability of officers to respond to emergencies. 

    In response, Local Government Legal Center and others (collectively “LGLC”), in support of Montana, argue that a probable cause requirement in emergency-aid situations would undermine public safety by causing delays in aid, discouraging welfare checks, and hindering police departments that prioritize mental health responses. As an example, LGLC points to welfare checks, and explains that by forcing police to find some connection to criminal activity, it would all but eliminate welfare checks, putting the nation’s most vulnerable at risk: children and the elderly.  In the alternative,LGLC argues that the heightened burden would create a perverse incentive for police officers to treat health emergencies as potential crimes to justify their entry into a home, which in turn may act as a disincentive for people who may otherwise need emergency aid from law enforcement.  Further, LGCL argues that this heightened standard would eliminate all the changes some police departments have made in taking proactive approaches to mental health responses.

    BALANCING INTERESTS IN PRIVACY AND SAFETY

    The Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, in support of Case, argue that without the probable cause standard, private homes will become susceptible to police searches on the basis of uncorroborated information, which will undermine the sanctity of the home and compromise privacy interests. Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability and Restore the Fourth, Inc. (collectively “PPSA”) argue that if officers are allowed to enter a home based only on a reasonable suspicion that an emergency is occurring, more pervasive digital surveillance will follow based on similar safety justifications. PPSA contends that the government could justify warrantless electronic surveillance based on concern for one’s safety without a fixed rule of probable cause for home entry to provide emergency aid. 

    The United States, in support of Montana, argues that privacy interests do not outweigh other individual interests in the context of emergency aid scenarios.  The United States argues that people overstate the individual interest in preventing emergency entries into their homes, and that homeowners often welcome and appreciate officers who enter to provide emergency aid. The United States asserts that privacy interests are only minimally implicated by emergency entries into one’s home because these entries are not personal or investigatory, so citizens often have a strong personal safety interest in allowing the entry and a very minimal countervailing privacy interest against the entry. 

    Conclusion

    Authors

    Written by:    Sam Schoenberg and Matthew Charles

    Edited by:      Kehan Rattani

     

    Additional Resources