New Supreme Court Case Tests Limits of Police Authority to Enter Your Home Without a Warrant

The Supreme Court just heard Case v. Montana, and the door they’re opening – or closing – matters to anyone who cares about privacy in the home.

At stake is a clean, high-stakes question: can officers enter your house without a warrant on less than probable cause if they believe there’s an emergency, or does the “emergency-aid” exception itself require probable cause?

The SCOTUS docket frames it exactly that way. The answer will ripple through Fourth Amendment law and, indirectly, into how courts treat gun owners, mental-health calls, and red-flag-style encounters.

Inside The Oral Argument: How “Certain” Must Police Be?

Court reporter Amy Howe listened to 75 minutes of debate and came away with a clear vibe: the justices seemed inclined to give police more leeway than William Case is seeking.

Howe explains that officers in Anaconda, Montana, responded in 2021 after Case’s ex-girlfriend reported suicide threats and a warning that he might confront police. 

When officers arrived, they got no response, saw what they believed was a suicide note and an empty holster through a window, and entered roughly 40 minutes later. An officer then shot Case, believing he saw a gun at Case’s waist.

According to Howe, Fred Rowley, arguing for Case, urged a bright line: the Court has “never allowed state officials to force their way into someone’s home without a warrant or probable cause,” and it should not start now. In his telling, the emergency-aid exception should be anchored to probable cause that someone is seriously injured or imminently at risk.

Montana Solicitor General Christian Corrigan pushed back hard, Howe reports. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches, not all warrantless ones, and emergency-aid has never been about criminal evidence – it’s about saving lives. 

Imposing a probable-cause threshold, he argued, would make officers “stand outside a dying man’s door” parsing legalese while time runs out.

Howe notes that skepticism of Rowley’s “probable cause” frame came from both wings of the Court. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether courts even use probable cause outside the criminal context. 

Chief Justice John Roberts floated terms like “probable concern” or “reasonable concern” to mark that this is a different inquiry than investigating a crime. 

Justice Elena Kagan worried that importing the criminal “probable cause” body of law into the rescue context is a mismatch, and she pointed to the Court’s Brigham City v. Stuart standard, an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone needs emergency help, as truer to purpose.

On the practical edge, Justice Samuel Alito asked the obvious: if police couldn’t go in on facts like these, when could they ever enter to stop a suicide? 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the officers’ detailed information from the girlfriend and Case’s history, calling it a “pretty significant emergency.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted that officers went in at risk to themselves to help, not to rummage for crimes.

The justices also sparred over what to do next. Howe recounts Justice Sonia Sotomayor favoring a remand so Montana’s courts can apply Brigham City’s “objectively reasonable” test. Justice Neil Gorsuch saw value in offering guidance on these concrete facts. 

The Solicitor General’s office, through Zoe Jacoby, urged the Court to apply the Brigham standard itself now, warning that ambiguity would spook officers from entering even when lives are at stake.

My read of Howe’s reporting: the Court is unlikely to constitutionalize a probable-cause-of-peril rule. Expect a reaffirmation, and perhaps a clarification of an objectively reasonable emergency-aid standard.

The Fourth Amendment Stakes – According To A Gun-Rights Lawyer

Attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law takes the worry in a different direction. In his view, Case v. Montana isn’t just about welfare checks; it’s about how easy it could become to force entry into your home under a vague “emergency” banner.

Kirk lays out the classic Fourth Amendment architecture: warrants generally require probable cause and particularity, but courts have carved exceptions over time. The home remains the castle, he argues, and when government wants to breach it, the default should be probable cause – especially if the entry is non-consensual.

Kirk criticizes the Montana Supreme Court’s approach (which he characterizes as embracing a “reasonable exigency” standard), and he links that to a broader fear: if “emergency” can mean a mere possibility of peril, police can justify entries “without much difficulty.” 

He worries that such a rule incentivizes forced entries where citizens haven’t sought help, creating deadly misunderstandings for homeowners and officers alike.

He also traces the tension with the Court’s modern guidance. Kirk points to Caniglia v. Strom (2021), where the Court rejected a free-standing “community caretaking” doctrine for homes, signaling that the government can’t sidestep warrants simply by relabeling the mission as caretaking. To Kirk, allowing a mushy emergency standard would resurrect caretaking in everything but name.

Here is Kirk’s punchline for gun owners: a lower emergency threshold becomes a ready pathway for firearm seizures during wellness checks, neighbor complaints, or hot-line calls – without the filtering discipline of a warrant or true probable cause. 

Even if a later hearing sorts things out, the home invasion moment has already happened, and the risk of tragedy was high.

Agree or disagree, Kirk’s caution is useful: standards that are easy to meet are also easy to abuse, and the place they matter most is your front door.

Squaring Brigham City, Caniglia, And Case

The justices sounded, as Howe reports, comfortable with Brigham City’s touchstone: did officers have an objectively reasonable basis to think someone inside needed immediate aid?

That test asks what a reasonable officer would believe on the totality of facts – tips from witnesses, sounds, sights through windows, text messages, timing, silence after knocks, known risk history, the whole picture. It does not require that a crime be afoot, and it does not demand certainty.

Caniglia matters because it shuts the door on a freestanding caretaking rationale for home entry. The government still needs a recognized exception – exigency, consent, hot pursuit, or true emergency aid – and the Court was emphatic that “caretaking” is not a magic key for houses.

Where does Case v. Montana fit? If the Court reaffirms Brigham City and rejects a special “probable cause of peril” gloss, it will likely stress three guardrails:

1. Objective facts, not vibes. Officers must be able to articulate why a reasonable person would believe emergency aid was needed.
2. Narrow tailoring. Entry scope is tied to addressing the emergency, not general searches. Once the emergency dissipates, the search must stop or pivot to warrant rules.
3. No pretext. Courts can and should reject entries where “emergency” is a fig leaf for evidence hunting.

Suppose the justices apply those guardrails to these facts. In that case, suicide threats relayed by a known witness, silence after knocks, visible note, empty holster, significant delay but continuing concern – they may well say the entry was reasonable. That would align with Howe’s read on the Court’s lean.

Kirk would answer that even a tightened “objective basis” test can slide into rubber stamping without careful enforcement. 

That’s the real friction here: the Court wants a workable test for real officers facing real emergencies; civil libertarians want a tight test that keeps the home sacrosanct.

What It Means For Regular People (And Gun Owners)

For everyday homeowners, the line that matters is the one officers recite on your porch. Under a Brigham-style rule, the question is not “did officers have probable cause of a crime?” It’s “did they reasonably believe you, or someone inside, needed immediate help?”

If the Court goes that way, expect:

• Faster entries on credible suicide threats, welfare checks, and domestic-violence alarms, especially where witnesses provide specific, timely details.
• Litigation over pretext. Defense lawyers will challenge whether the “aid” rationale was genuine or a backdoor to evidence.
• Suppression fights about scope. Even if entry was justified, rummaging beyond the emergency will still draw fire.

For gun owners, Kirk’s warning is concrete. Wellness-check calls that reference firearms will carry more weight in the totality analysis. 

That does not mean officers can sweep the house for guns. It does mean that visible context – empty holster, spent casings, texted threats – can flip the entry calculus fast.

My view: the safer long-term equilibrium is a rigorous objective-reasonableness test with real teeth. Courts should require officers to document specific facts, reject vague “concerns,” and cabin the entry to the aid mission. Do that consistently, and you preserve both lifesaving speed and home privacy.

What Happens Next

As Howe notes, a decision is expected by late June or early July. The justices could (1) reaffirm Brigham City and apply it to uphold the entry; (2) reaffirm Brigham City but remand for Montana to apply it; or (3) craft a refined standard – something like “objectively reasonable, articulable belief of imminent harm” – and then apply or remand.

If I were handicapping: the Court will reject a probable-cause-of-peril rule, re-endorse an objective emergency-aid test, and either apply it to these facts or send it back with pointed guidance. The center-right bloc’s questions, as Howe relays them, read like votes to give police room in true emergencies. The liberals’ concerns focused more on terminology fit than on slamming the door on entry.

Here’s my bottom line.

The home is the constitutional crown jewel. But the Fourth Amendment has never required officers to watch someone die through a window while they draft warrant affidavits. 

The right standard is fast but factual: make entry when specific, articulable facts show a need for immediate aid, limit the scope to that aid, and expect suppression when those limits are blown.

If the Court lands there, it will protect the knock-and-rush that saves a life and still guard against the fishing expedition that guts a home. 

That balance isn’t perfect, and it demands discipline from police and judges alike. But it’s the balance that keeps both freedom and first-aid alive when seconds matter.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.