BlogLine

The Fourth Amendment and emergency aid: Is probable cause necessary?

2/4/26

By: Venus Esfandiari

When can law enforcement officers enter a home without a warrant to address an emergency situation? This question has divided courts of years. In Case v. Montana, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), the Supreme Court examined the question through the lens of the Fourth Amendment, and provided an answer: officers do not need “probable cause” of an ongoing emergency to enter a home without a warrant—they only need an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance

This case arose after the plaintiff, William Case, called his ex-girlfriend, and told her he intended to kill himself. During the call, he sounded erratic and said he was going to write “a note,” presumably a suicide note. The woman then heard a sound like a gun being cocked, followed by a pop, before the call went silent. Believing Case had shot himself, the woman called 911. When officers arrived at Case’s home, they were aware that he had a history of alcohol abuse, mental health issues, suicide threats, and one attempt at “suicide by cop.” They examined the outside of the house, knocked on doors, and yelled into an open window, but received no response. They also saw empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad with writing on it which they believed was a suicide note. They did not see Case. After conferring with their chief, the officers entered the home to render emergency aid. When one of the officers entered a bedroom, Case burst out of a closet holding what looked like a gun. An officer shot Case in the abdomen. A handgun was later found nearby.

Case survived and was charged with assaulting a police officer. He moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction under its community caretaker doctrine, rejecting a probable‑cause requirement.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to decide what standard should apply for a warrantless “emergency aid” entry: an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance, or the higher “probable cause” standard, as is typically required in criminal contexts. Justice Kagan delivered the Court’s unanimous opinion, which held that the objective reasonableness standard applies, “with no further gloss,” in the non-criminal, non-investigatory context of warrantless entries to provide emergency aid.

The Court explained that the history of the probable cause standard is rooted in criminal investigations and establishes the likelihood of finding evidence of a crime. The probable cause standard would “fit awkwardly, if at all, in non criminal and non investigatory settings” such as cases like this, where an officer must determine whether entry is needed to prevent or address serious harm.  At the same time, the Court stressed that an officer entering someone’s house under the emergency-aid exception is not permitted to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers’ safety.

So, the Court has now clarified how courts should analyze warrantless “emergency aid” entries under the Fourth Amendment: When an officer enters a home to provide emergency aid or prevent serious harm, he or she must have an objectively reasonable basis to believe the person inside needs immediate assistance. The officer is not required to meet the higher “probable cause” to make such a decision.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Case v. Montana (available here) on January 14, 2026. If you have any questions about this case or other issues related to the Fourth Amendment, please contact Venus Esfandiari at venus.esfandiari@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.