Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

3 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

forcement so compelling that the warrantless search is ob-
jectively  reasonable  under  the  Fourth  Amendment.” 
Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 403 (internal quotation marks 
omitted); see also ante, at 3.  As relevant here, one such rec-
ognized  “exigency”  is  the  “need  to  assist  persons  who  are
seriously injured or threatened with such injury.”  Brigham 
City, 547 U. S., at 403; see also ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J., 
concurring).  The Fourth Amendment allows officers to en-
ter a home if they have “an objectively reasonable basis for 
believing” that such help is needed, and if the officers’ ac-
tions  inside  the  home  are  reasonable  under  the  circum-
stances.  Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 406; see also Michigan 
v. Fisher, 558 U. S., at 47–48. 

This case does not require us to explore all the contours
of  the  exigent  circumstances  doctrine  as  applied  to  emer-
gency-aid situations because the officers here disclaimed re-
liance on that doctrine.  But to avoid any confusion going 
forward, I think it important to briefly describe how the doc-
trine applies to some heartland emergency-aid situations. 
As  Chief  Judge  Livingston  has  cogently  explained,  alt-
hough  this  doctrinal  area  does  not  draw  much  attention 
from courts or scholars, “municipal police spend a good deal 
of  time  responding  to  calls  about  missing  persons,  sick 
neighbors, and premises left open at night.”  Livingston, Po-
lice, Community Caretaking, and the Fourth Amendment,
1998 U. Chi. Leg. Forum 261, 263 (1998).  And as she aptly 
noted,  “the  responsibility  of  police  officers  to  search  for
missing persons, to mediate disputes, and to aid the ill or 
injured  has  never  been  the  subject  of  serious  debate;  nor 
has”  the  “responsibility  of  police  to  provide  services  in  an 
emergency.”  Id., at 302. 

Consistent with that reality, the Court’s exigency prece-
dents, as I read them, permit warrantless entries when po-
lice officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe 
that there is a current, ongoing crisis for which it is reason-