Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–157 
_________________ 

EDWARD A. CANIGLIA, PETITIONER v. 
ROBERT F. STROM, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[May 17, 2021] 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full.  I  write  separately  to
underscore  and  elaborate  on  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s  point
that  the  Court’s  decision  does  not  prevent  police  officers
from taking reasonable steps to assist those who are inside 
a home and in need of aid.  See ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J., 
concurring).  For example, as I will explain, police officers 
may  enter  a  home  without  a  warrant  in  circumstances
where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential su-
icide or to help an elderly person who has been out of con-
tact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.

Ratified  in  1791  and  made  applicable  to  the  States  in 
1868, the Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the peo-
ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
against unreasonable searches and seizures.”  As the con-
stitutional text establishes, the “ultimate touchstone of the 
Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.”  Riley v. California, 
573 U. S. 373, 381 (2014) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  The Court has said that a warrant supported by prob-
able cause is ordinarily required for law enforcement offic-
ers to enter a home.  See U. S. Const., Amdt. 4.  But drawing 
on common-law analogies and a commonsense appraisal of 
what is “reasonable,” the Court has recognized various sit-
uations where a warrant is not required.  For example, the
exigent  circumstances  doctrine  allows  officers  to  enter  a