Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) :

Officers who responded to a disturbance in a house entered the house without a warrant. Before entering the house, officers witnessed a violent altercation between adults in the house and a juvenile. Officers arrested and charged the adults with contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile among other things. The adults argued that the officers entry into the home without the warrant violated their fourth amendment rights.

Held: Officers entry into the home without a warrant did not violate the fourth amendment because officers had an objectively readable basis to believe that an occupant in the house my be injured or they may need to prevent occupants from imminent injury. Also the subjective motivation of the officers for entering the house is irrelevant.

Table of Contents



In the early morning hours of July 23, 2000, at about 3 a.m., four police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at a residence. Upon arriving at the house, they heard shouting from inside, and proceeded down the driveway to investigate. 

There, they observed two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They entered the backyard, and saw—through a screen door and windows—an altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. According to the testimony of one of the officers, four adults were attempting, with some difficulty, to restrain a juvenile. The juvenile eventually “broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults in the face.” The officer testified that he observed the victim of the blow spitting blood into a nearby sink. 

The other adults continued to try to restrain the juvenile, pressing him up against a refrigerator with such force that the refrigerator began moving across the floor. At this point, an officer opened the screen door and announced the officers’ presence. Amid the tumult, nobody noticed. The officer entered the kitchen and again cried out, and as the occupants slowly became aware that the police were on the scene, the altercation ceased.

The officers subsequently arrested the adults and charged them with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. In the trial court, the defendants filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained after the officers entered the home, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment.


Whether the officers warrantless entry into the defendants’ home was reasonable under the circumstances.


Where officers have objectively reasonable basis to believe that an injured person might need help, it is reasonable under the fourth amendment for the officers to enter a premise without a warrant, to render aid to an injured occupant or protect an occupant from imminent injury.


The court explained that, It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.  Nevertheless, because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions.

One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise be illegal absent an exigency or emergency. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.

The defendants conceded to this rule but they however argued that the officers were more interested in making arrests than quelling violence. They urge us to consider, in assessing the reasonableness of the entry, whether the officers were indeed motivated primarily by a desire to save lives and property.

But the court disagreed:

The court explained that the subjective motives of the officers were irrelevant. 

The court stated that our cases have repeatedly rejected this approach. An action is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. The officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant.

Next the defendants argued that their conduct was not serious enough to justify the officers’ intrusion into the home.

But again the court disagreed with them.

The court explained that we think the officers’ entry here was plainly reasonable under the circumstances. The officers were responding, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to complaints about a loud party. As they approached the house, they could hear from within an altercation occurring, some kind of a fight. It was loud and it was tumultuous. The officers heard thumping and crashing and people yelling “stop, stop” and “get off me.” As the trial court found, “it was obvious that … knocking on the front door” would have been futile. The noise seemed to be coming from the back of the house. And after looking in the front window and seeing nothing, the officers proceeded around back to investigate further. They found two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. 

From there, they could see that a fracas was taking place inside the kitchen. A juvenile, fists clenched, was being held back by several adults. As the officers watch, he breaks free and strikes one of the adults in the face, sending the adult to the sink spitting blood.

In these 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.

The manner of the officers’ entry was also reasonable. After witnessing the punch, one of the officers opened the screen door and “yelled in police.”  When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside. The officer’s announcement of his presence was at least equivalent to a knock on the screen door. Indeed, it was probably the only option that had even a chance of rising above the din. Under these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment’s knock-and-announce rule. Furthermore, once the announcement was made, the officers were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence.


The officers entry into the house without a warrant was reasonable because the officer had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that occupants in the house may need aid.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on pocket