Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

2 

CANIGLIA v. STROM 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

home without a warrant in certain situations, including: to 
fight a fire and investigate its cause; to prevent the immi-
nent destruction of evidence; to engage in hot pursuit of a
fleeing  felon  or  prevent  a  suspect’s  escape;  to  address  a 
threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or the gen-
eral  public;  to  render  emergency  assistance  to  an  injured 
occupant; or to protect an occupant who is threatened with
serious injury.  See Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 6); City and County of 
San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U. S. 600, 612 (2015); Ken-
tucky v. King, 563 U. S. 452, 460, 462 (2011); Michigan v. 
Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam); Brigham City 
v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403 (2006); Minnesota v. Olson, 495 
U. S.  91,  100  (1990);  Michigan  v.  Clifford,  464  U. S.  287, 
293, and n. 4 (1984) (plurality opinion); Mincey v. Arizona, 
437 U. S. 385, 392–394 (1978); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 
499,  509–510  (1978);  United  States  v.  Santana,  427  U. S. 
38, 42–43 (1976); Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 
U. S. 294, 298–299 (1967); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 
40–41 (1963) (plurality opinion).

Over the years, many courts, like the First Circuit in this
case, have relied on what they have labeled a “community 
caretaking”  doctrine  to  allow  warrantless  entries  into  the 
home for a non-investigatory purpose, such as to prevent a
suicide or to conduct a welfare check on an older individual 
who  has  been  out  of  contact.  But  as  the  Court  today  ex-
plains, any such standalone community caretaking doctrine
was primarily devised for searches of cars, not homes.  Ante, 
at  3–4;  see  Cady  v.  Dombrowski,  413  U. S.  433,  447–448 
(1973).

That said, this Fourth Amendment issue is more labeling 
than substance.  The Court’s Fourth Amendment case law 
already  recognizes  the  exigent  circumstances  doctrine, 
which allows an officer to enter a home without a warrant 
if the “exigencies of the situation make the needs of law en-