The Tribune News Wire wrote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Police officers may enter a home without a warrant to break up a fight they have seen through a window, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Usually, homes are off-limits to police and government searches except when officers have a warrant from a judge.
The unanimous decision overturned rulings by the Utah state courts, which held that a loud party and a drunken fight did not give police reason to enter a home without a warrant.
Usually, homes are off-limits to police and government searches except when officers have a warrant from a judge.
The unanimous decision overturned rulings by the Utah state courts, which held that a loud party and a drunken fight did not give police reason to enter a home without a warrant.
Those arrested claimed that the evidence used in their arrest was inadmissible because the police did not have a warrant to enter and thusly violated their 4th Amendment protections. They further state that it was unreasonable to invoke the idea of "emergency protections" for the injured party as none were seriously threatened. This wasn't a case of the police hearing gunshots or a woman screaming for help, it was some guy spitting out some blood as he and several others restrained the other party. Furthermore, the police did not even lend emergency medical care to the one injured party.
The Supreme Court decided that they were not buying this.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
...[T]he officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence was just beginning. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment required them to wait until another blow rendered someone unconscious, semiconscious, or worse before entering. The manner of their entry was also reasonable, since nobody heard the first announcement of their presence, and it was only after the announcing officer stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again that the tumult subsided. That announcement was at least equivalent to a knock on the screen door and, under the 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 make them stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
Edited to add a PDF warning to the link
Edited, Wed May 24 10:16:28 2006 by Jophiel