Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

viewed to be “sound police procedure.”  Id., at 123–128, 132– 
133.  We granted certiorari.  592 U. S. ___ (2020). 

II 

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people 
to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,
against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures.”    The  “ ‘very 
core’ ” of this guarantee is “ ‘the right of a man to retreat into
his own home and there be free from unreasonable govern-
mental  intrusion.’ ”  Florida  v.  Jardines,  569  U. S.  1,  6 
(2013).

To be sure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all
unwelcome  intrusions  “on  private  property,”  ibid.—only
“unreasonable” ones.  We have thus recognized a few per-
missible invasions of the home and its curtilage.  Perhaps
most familiar, for example, are searches and seizures pur-
suant to a valid warrant.  See Collins v. Virginia, 584 U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 5–6).  We have also held that 
law enforcement officers may enter private property with-
out a warrant when certain exigent circumstances exist, in-
cluding the need to “ ‘render emergency assistance to an in-
jured  occupant  or  to  protect  an  occupant  from  imminent
injury.’ ”  Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. 452, 460, 470 (2011); 
see  also  Brigham  City  v.  Stuart,  547  U. S.  398,  403–404 
(2006)  (listing  other  examples  of  exigent  circumstances).
And,  of  course,  officers  may  generally  take  actions  that
“ ‘any  private  citizen  might  do’ ”  without  fear  of  liability. 
E.g.,  Jardines,  569  U. S.,  at  8  (approaching  a  home  and 
knocking on the front door). 

The  First  Circuit’s  “community  caretaking”  rule,  how-
ever, goes beyond anything this Court has recognized.  The 
decision below assumed that respondents lacked a warrant
or consent, and it expressly disclaimed the possibility that 
they were reacting to a crime.  The court also declined to 
consider  whether  any  recognized  exigent  circumstances
were present because respondents had forfeited the point.