Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 209

48 

MICHIGAN  v.  FISHER 

Per Curiam 

watched  through  the  window  as  a  juvenile  broke  free  from 
the adults restraining him and punched another adult in the 
face, who recoiled to the sink, spitting blood.  Ibid.  Under 
these circumstances, we found it “plainly reasonable” for the 
ofﬁcers  to  enter  the  house  and  quell  the  violence,  for  they 
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.”  Ibid. 

A straightforward application of the emergency aid excep­
tion, as in Brigham City, dictates that the ofﬁcer’s entry was 
reasonable.  Just as in Brigham City, the police ofﬁcers here 
were  responding  to  a  report  of  a  disturbance.  Just  as  in 
Brigham City, when they arrived on the scene they encoun­
tered  a  tumultuous  situation  in  the  house—and  here  they 
also  found  signs  of  a  recent  injury,  perhaps  from  a  car  acci­
dent,  outside.  And  just  as  in  Brigham  City,  the  ofﬁcers 
could see violent behavior inside.  Although Ofﬁcer Goolsby 
and  his  partner  did  not  see  punches  thrown,  as  did  the  ofﬁ­
cers  in  Brigham  City,  they  did  see  Fisher  screaming  and 
throwing  things.  It  would  be  objectively  reasonable  to  be­
lieve  that  Fisher’s  projectiles  might  have  a  human  target 
(perhaps a spouse or a child), or that Fisher would hurt him­
self  in  the  course  of  his  rage.  In  short,  we  ﬁnd  it  as  plain 
here as  we did in Brigham  City that the ofﬁcer’s  entry was 
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, thought the situ­
ation “did not rise to a level of emergency justifying the war­
rantless intrusion into a residence.”  2008 WL 786515, at *2. 
Although  the  Court  of  Appeals  conceded  that  “there  was 
evidence an injured person was on the premises,” it found it 
signiﬁcant  that  “the  mere  drops  of  blood  did  not  signal  a 
likely  serious,  life-threatening  injury.”  Ibid.  The  court 
added that the cut Ofﬁcer Goolsby observed on Fisher’s hand 
“likely  explained  the  trail  of  blood”  and  that  Fisher  “was 
very much on his feet and apparently able to see to his own 
needs.”  Ibid.