Document: 547 U.S. 398 (2006) BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH v. STUART et al. No. 05-502. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 24, 2006. Decided May 22, *399 Jeffrey S. Gray, Assistant Attorney General Utah, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Mark L. Shurtleff, General, Kirk M. Torgensen, Chief Deputy and J. Frederic Voros, Jr. *400 McNulty States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On brief Solicitor Clement, Fisher, Dreeben, Patricia A. Millett. Michael P. Studebaker filed a respondents.[*] CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered opinion Court. In this case we consider whether police may enter home without warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis believing that occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. We conclude may. I This arises out melee occurred in Brigham City, early morning hours July 23, 2000. At about 3 a.m., four officers responded to call regarding *401 loud party at residence. Upon arriving house, heard shouting from inside, proceeded down driveway investigate. There, observed two juveniles drinking beer backyard. They entered backyard, sawthrough screen door windowsan altercation taking place kitchen home. According testimony one officers, adults attempting, some difficulty, restrain juvenile. The juvenile eventually "broke free, swung fist struck face." 2005 UT 13, ¶ 2, 122 P.3d 506, 508. officer testified he victim blow spitting blood into nearby sink. App. 40. other continued try juvenile, pressing up against refrigerator force began moving across floor. point, opened announced officers' presence. Amid tumult, nobody noticed. again cried out, occupants slowly became aware scene, ceased. subsequently arrested respondents charged them contributing delinquency minor, disorderly conduct, intoxication. trial court, motion suppress all evidence obtained after home, arguing warrantless entry violated Fourth Amendment. court granted motion, Utah Appeals affirmed. Before City although lacked warrant, their was nevertheless either grounds. rejected both contentions and, over dissenters, First, held injury caused by juvenile's punch insufficient trigger so-called "emergency aid doctrine" because it did not give rise "objectively belief unconscious, semiconscious, *402 missing person feared dead [was] home." P.3d, 513 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, suggested doctrine inapplicable had sought assist adult, but instead acted "exclusively law enforcement capacity." Ibid. also fall within exigent circumstances exception requirement. applies, explained, where probable "a [would] believe necessary prevent physical harm persons." Id., 514 Under standard, stated, potential need be serious required invoke emergency exception. Although found close difficult call," concluded justified circumstances. 515. certiorari, 546 1085 (2006), light differences among state courts Courts concerning appropriate Amendment standard governing situation. Compare re Sealed Case 96-3167, 153 F.3d 759, 766 (CADC 1998) ("[T]he objective one"), People Hebert, 46 473, 480 (Colo. 2002) (en banc) (considering "would been examined prudent trained officer"), Cervantes, 219 882, 890 (CA9 2000) ("[U]nder doctrine, `[a] search must primarily motivated intent arrest seize evidence'" (quoting Mitchell, 39 N.Y. 2d 173, 177, 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976)), State Mountford, 171 Vt. 487, 492, 769 A.2d 639, 645 (2000) (Mitchell test "requir[es] find primary subjective motivation behind searches provide aid"). *403 II It "`basic principle seizures inside are presumptively unreasonable.'" Groh Ramirez, 540 551, 559 (2004) Payton New York, 445 573, 586 (1980); internal Nevertheless, ultimate touchstone "reasonableness," requirement subject certain exceptions. Flippo West Virginia, 528 11, 13 (1999) (per curiam); Katz States, 389 347, 357 (1967). held, example, make onto private property fight fire investigate its cause, Michigan Tyler, 436 499, 509 (1978), imminent destruction evidence, Ker California, 374 40 (1963) (plurality opinion), engage "`hot pursuit'" fleeing suspect, Santana, 427 38, 42, 43 (1976). "[W]arrants generally person's his unless `the exigencies situation' needs so compelling under Amendment." Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 393-394 (1978). One exigency obviating persons who "`The protect preserve life avoid justification what would otherwise illegal absent emergency.'" 392 Wayne 318 F.2d 205, 212 1963) (Burger, J.)); see supra, 509. Accordingly, render assistance Mincey, 392; Georgia Randolph, ante, 118 ("[I]t silly suggest commit tort entering . determine *404 violence (or threat violence) has just soon will) occur"). Respondents do take issue these principles, advance reasons why here unreasonable. argue more interested making arrests than quelling violence. urge us consider, assessing reasonableness entry, "indeed desire save lives property." Brief 3; National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae 6 (entry justifies "only searching acting outside traditional law-enforcement capacity"). considered motivations relevant. See (search "primarily evidence" omitted)). Our cases repeatedly approach. An action "reasonable" Amendment, regardless individual officer's mind, "as long circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action." Scott 128, 138 (1978) (emphasis added). irrelevant. Bond 529 334, 338, n. 2 ("The parties properly agree irrelevant determining actions violate .; effect actions"); Whren 517 806, 813 (1996) ("[W]e unwilling entertain challenges based actual officers"); Graham Connor, 490 386, 397 (1989) ("[O]ur prior clear" "the ha[ve] no bearing particular seizure `unreasonable' Amendment"). *405 therefore does matter hereeven if motives could neatly unraveledwhether gather further As note, context programmatic conducted individualized suspicionsuch checkpoints combat drunk driving drug traffickingthat "an inquiry purpose" sometimes appropriate. Indianapolis Edmond, 531 32, added); Florida Wells, 495 1, 4 (1990) (an inventory regulated "standardized criteria" "established routine" "be ruse general rummaging order discover incriminating evidence"). But directed ensuring purpose program "ultimately indistinguishable interest crime control." U. S., 44. nothing discerning mind conducting search. 48. contend conduct enough intrusion rely Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740, 753 (1984), which important factor any exists gravity underlying offense being made." contention, too, misplaced. involved suspect while intoxicated. emergency" confronting (i. e., suspect's blood-alcohol level)an Here, confronted ongoing occurring address *406 think plainly responding, o'clock morning, complaints party. approached hear occurring, kind fight." 29. "It tumultuous." 33. "thumping crashing" people yelling "stop, stop" "get off me." 28, found, "it obvious knocking front door" futile. 92. noise seemed coming back house; looking window seeing nothing, around further. From there, fracas kitchen. A fists clenched, several adults. watch, breaks free strikes face, sending adult sink blood. might help beginning. Nothing wait until another rendered someone "unconscious" "semi-conscious" worse before entering. role peace includes preventing restoring order, simply rendering first casualties; like boxing hockey) referee, poised stop bout only becomes too one-sided. manner reasonable. After witnessing punch, "yelled police." When him, stepped himself again. Only then tumult subside. announcement presence least equivalent knock door. Indeed, probably *407 option even chance rising above din. there violation Amendment's knock-and-announce rule. once made, enter; serve require stand dumbly awaiting response those brawled on, oblivious reverse judgment remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS, concurring. odd flyspeck case. charges pending past six years minor offensesintoxication, conducttwo proved gathered responding maximum punishment crimes ranges between 90 days months jail. And Court's unanimous restating well-settled rules federal clearly persuasive hard imagine outcome ever doubt. question following most peculiar: (1) judge, intermediate appellate facts; (2) prosecution chose pursue way Court; (3) voted grant petition writ certiorari. possible explanation suppression ruling correct law, neither counsel nor judge bothered identify Constitution independent decision *408 expect appeal.[*] plausible latter decisions made violencewe are, course, reversing conclusion contrary. purpose, laudable though be, cannot achieved holding today addresses limitations placed Federal issue; authority decide Constitution. Court, however, clear provides greater protection privacy DeBooy, 2000 12, 996 P.2d 546, 549. complained respondents' failure raise adequately constitutional challenge, thus deciding anything 510. "[S]urpris[ed]" "[t]he reluctance litigants develop analysis," ibid., expressly invited future bring enable fulfill "responsibility guardians liberty our citizens" "undertak[e] principled exploration interplay protections rights," id., 511. fact admonishment request came very demonstrates selected wrong establishing rule wants, indicates adopt same reject *409 Whether forecast accurate, can reason redecide law. interests offended single elects citizens requires. continue "that policy judicial restraintone allows decisional bodies last word legal interpretation truly interveneenables effective contribution system government." Long, 463 1032, 1067 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Thus, join opinion, remain persuaded my vote deny State's certiorari correct. NOTES [*] Briefs amici reversal Cox, Michigan, Thomas Casey, Kym Worthy Timothy Baughman, Attorneys respective follows: John W. Suthers Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Tom Miller Iowa, Phill Kline Kansas, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Mike McGrath Montana, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Stenehjem North Dakota, Hardy Myers Oregon, Corbett Pennsylvania, William Sorrell Vermont, Rob McKenna Washington, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Fraternal Order Police Larry H. James Laura MacGregor Comek; League Cities Richard Ruda Lawrence Rosenthal. Jonathan D. Hacker Pamela Harris affirmance. Schmidt, Manak, Weintraub, Bernard Farber Americans Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., curiae. prepared court's granting suppress. 2002 317, 4, 57 1111, 1112.

Category: 0