By: Steven Budman
“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places… .”[1] This quote from Justice Stewart’s opinion in Katz v. United States has been one of the most, if not the most, influential rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Fourth Amendment. Historically, the Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment had been textual, in the sense that the Fourth Amendment protected people in their homes against government intrusion without a warrant based on probable cause granted by a neutral and detached magistrate.
Justice Stewart’s opinion in Katz marked a pivotal shift in the Court’s approach to the Fourth Amendment by introducing the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, or “REOP,” as part of the analysis for determining whether the Fourth Amendment applies. Read together with Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz—which emphasized that “… warrants are the general rule, to which the legitimate needs of law enforcement may demand specific exceptions”[2]—these principles establish that where an individual has REOP, a warrant is generally required for law enforcement activities in such areas. However, the Court has long recognized that this general rule is subject to certain exceptions, and the Katz opinion did not lessen the protections already provided by the Fourth Amendment, but instead expanded its reach.[3]
Since the Katz decision, the Supreme Court has addressed numerous cases defining and refining potential exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Most recently, on January 14, 2026, the Court issued a unanimous opinion, a rare occurrence for the current Court, addressing another exception to the Fourth Amendment. In Case v. Montana, the Court articulated a bright-line rule permitting warrantless entry where an officer has an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an occupant faces serious danger.[4]
In Case v. Montana, Case erratically called his ex-girlfriend, J. H., during which he told her he was going to commit suicide.[5] J. H. assumed that Case had been drinking based on his speech and demeanor and attempted to calm him down, but was unsuccessful.[6] J. H. explained that, as she remained on the phone, Case became more methodical in describing what he was planning to do and that he was getting a note.[7] After J. H. heard a clicking sound that resembled a gun being cocked, she told Case that she was calling the police .[8] Ultimately, after hearing a “pop” followed by silence, J. H. called police who were dispatched to Case’s home to perform “a welfare check on a suicidal male.”[9] Officers were aware of Case’s prior mental-health issues, prior alcohol abuse, and prior suicide attempts, including an attempted “suicide-by-cop”.[10] Officers arrived and awaited the arrival of their Chief prior to proceeding to take action.[11] While waiting, officers walked around Case’s house to see if there were any dangers present.[12] Through the windows, officers saw empty beer cans, an empty gun holster in the house, and a note pad with writing on it.[13] When the Chief arrived, the officers conferred and determined to enter the home to “render emergency aid” and talk Case down.[14] Officers entered the home with guns and a ballistic shield, just in case there was a confrontation awaiting them, and announced themselves.[15] Case did not respond to the officers’ announcement, and, when they entered his room, Case jumped out of a closet where he was hiding holding a “black object” that appeared to be a gun, prompting the officers to shoot him out of fear that he would fire at them.[16] Case was taken to the hospital, and while he was en route, officers discovered a gun in the laundry basket next to where he was standing at the time of the altercation.[17] Case was charged with assaulting a police officer, and moved to suppress all of the evidence from the home entry claiming it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights for the officers’ to enter his home without a warrant.[18] The trial court denied the suppression, Case was found guilty, and Case appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.[19] A divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on a “community caretaking rule.”[20] The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the rule, as courts were coming out differently as to whether officers need “probable cause” to enter a home to render emergency aid.[21]
The Court first addressed a similar situation to Case v. Montana in 2006 in Brigham City v. Stuart. In Brigham City, officers responded to a noise complaint, and, through a window, the officers observed a physical altercation involving children and multiple adults.[22] The officers entered the home without a warrant, announced themselves, and proceeded to stop the fight.[23] The Court unanimously upheld the warrantless entry on the rationale that the entry was “reasonable under the circumstances.”[24]
Furthermore, three years later, the Court decided Michigan v. Fisher, reaffirming the logic of Brigham City and holding that the warrantless entry by police in Fisher was likewise reasonable under the circumstances.[25] However, the Court limited this reasonableness standard in Caniglia, explaining that the broad “community caretaking” doctrine does not give officers an “open-ended license” to enter private homes.[26] Ultimately, the Court used Case to create a bright-line rule: where officers have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or that such harm is imminent, and that intervention is necessary to prevent such harm from occurring or continuing, they may enter a home without a warrant.[27]
Case v. Montana gives a modern spin to the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects people, by permitting law enforcement to enter the home to protect occupants from ongoing or imminent harm. However, there are some concerns that should be raised when considering how the ruling in Case can be expanded to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, especially given the events currently unfolding across the country.
First and foremost, as Justice Sotomayor points out in her concurrence in Case, there are circumstances where it would not be objectively reasonable for police to enter a home to preserve life or avoid serious injury.[28] For example, if anyone—whether law enforcement, family members, or mental health counselors—suddenly enters a home of an armed individual experiencing a mental-health crisis, the intrusion may trigger panic, escalating the situation and increasing the risk of harm to both the person in crisis and those entering. Given the significant rise of mental-health concerns across the United States, Justice Sotomayor’s logic holds true.
Furthermore, Justice Sotomayor also emphasizes that the widespread ownership of firearms in the United States can also weigh on the analysis provided by Case.[29] In 2023 alone, over 27,000 people in the United States died by gun-related suicides.[30] While the overlap of mental-health concerns and gun-ownership is not discussed here as the topic—as this piece centers around the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment—it is important to discuss these items as part of the analysis of the reasonableness standard provided by Case. If the goal is truly to protect people, then we must keep these matters in mind as to whether forcibly entering a home will genuinely protect the occupant and the responding officers.
Case highlights both these concerns. In certain circumstances, alternative de-escalation methods may be more reasonable, not only to protect the occupant but also to protect law enforcement officers. Thus, as Justice Sotomayor reiterates in her concurrence, the reasonableness standard is a highly fact-dependent analysis, and these caveats serve as guardrails to guide the application of the standard.[31]
Another concern is whether the Case standardcould be used as a pretext to gain access to a home where potentially incriminating materials or evidence are not hidden away and are subsequently used against the occupant. Justice Gorsuch in his concurrence stresses that the exception to the Fourth Amendment laid out in Case permits entry to a home without a warrant “only to the extent reasonably necessary to address the apparent emergency and does not authorize officers to search a home more broadly.”[32] However, the Court’s opinion in Case allowed for the admission of evidence recovered from Case’s home by the responding officers without a warrant, concluding that such recovery did not a violate the Fourth Amendment.
Thus, the Court has potentially given officers the ability to provide an “objectively reasonable” basis to enter the home to render “emergency aid” while nevertheless recovering incriminating evidence that is plainly visible within the home. Moreover, the Court has historically declined to examine the subjective motivations of officers. As Justice Scalia explained in Whern v. United States, the Court is not willing to “entertain Fourth Amendment Challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers… .”[33] Although Whren arose in a criminal context, and Case involved an emergency situation, Case’s holding raises concerns that the “emergency aid” exception could be used to bypass the Fourth Amendment under the guise of protecting occupants from harm.
Recognizing this argument is important given the recent actions and operations carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). In the past year, the current administration has put a large emphasis on cracking down on illegal immigration, leading to a rise in activity by federal law enforcement officers. As part of these operations, ICE and DHS have been instructed to target undocumented immigrants already in the country and work to have them deported. ICE and DHS have conducted raids on homes to arrest those suspected of being in the country without documentation, specifically targeting individuals with violent criminal history.[34] The first concern is that ICE and DHS have attempted to circumvent the requirement of a warrant signed by a neutral and detached magistrate, as mandated by the Fourth Amendment, by relying on administrative warrants signed by other ICE officials.[35] Given these practices, it is conceivable that ICE or DHS could argue—under the reasoning of Case—that they may enter a home of a suspected undocumented immigrant based on a purportedly reasonable belief that occupants face imminent danger due to the individual’s alleged criminal past. Under the holding of Case, such an argument may gain traction, particularly in light of the manner in which the government and the media have portrayed undocumented immigrants. The inflammatory language being used to describe undocumented immigrants could sway the public to believe that there is a reasonable basis that ongoing harm or imminent harm is present where the undocumented immigrants reside. This is a dangerous proposition, given the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect all people in the United States.
This piece is not to criticize the Court’s ruling in Case, as the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement serves an important purpose in allowing law enforcement officers to respond swiftly and protect individuals from serious harm. Rather, this piece highlights the potential ramifications of the Court’s holding in Case and underscores the need for continued vigilance to ensure that such exceptions do not ultimately lead to the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment. Just as Justice Stewart said, the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and if arguments can be made to strip people of those protections, even for the sake of the wellbeing of the people, we must consider the consequences.
[1] Katz v. US, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).
[2] Id. at 362.
[3] Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 5 (2013) (quoting Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276, 286 (1983))
[4] Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, 2026 WL 96690, at *4 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026).
[5] Id. at *2
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Case, 2026 WL 96690, at *2.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at *2-3.
[15] Id.at *3.
[16] Case, 2026 WL 96690, at *2-3.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id. at *3.
[21] Id. at *4.
[22] Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 400-01 (2006).
[23] Id.
[24] Id. at 406-07.
[25] Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49-50 (2009).
[26] Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194, 198-99 (2021).
[27] Case, 2026 WL 96690, at *4-6.
[28] Id. at *7.
[29] Id.
[30] New Report Highlights U.S. 2023 Gun Deaths: Suicide By Firearm At Record Levels For Third Straight Year, John Hopkins Bloomberg School Of Public Health (June 26, 2025), https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year [https://perma.cc/7Q5M-MN5Y]
[31] Case, 2026 WL 96690, at *8-9.
[32] Id. at *9-10.
[33] Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813-14 (1996).
[34] Rebecca Santana, Immigration Officers Assert Sweeping Power To Enter Homes Without A Judge’s Warrant, Memo Says, Associated Press (Jan. 21, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d [https://perma.cc/X59M-4UKJ]
[35] Id.
