Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Chief Justice Roberts

Mr. Roberts: I have the opinion in 05-502 Brigham City versus Stuart.

At about 3 o’ clock in the morning, four Brigham City Utah police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at a residence.

When they arrived at the house, they heard shouting from inside coming from the back of the house.

They proceeded down the driveway to investigate.

From the backyard, they could see into the home’s kitchen through a screen door and windows.

There was an altercation taking place.

Four adults were trying to restrain a juvenile.

The juvenile broke free and punched one of the adults in the face.

The victim went to spit blood into a sink while the other adults continued trying to subdue the juvenile.

One of the officers opened the screen door and yelled in ‘Police’, but the ruckus from the fight was too loud, nobody heard him.

So he stepped into the kitchen and again cried out.

As people gradually became aware that the police were on the scene, the altercation subsided.

The officers then arrested several of the adults for Disorderly Conduct, Intoxication and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor.

The Trial Court excluded all evidence obtained after the officers entered the home on the ground that the officer’s entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Utah also concluded that the officer’s entry was improper.

The Court said that the injury caused by the juvenile’s punch was not serious enough to allow the officers to enter.

This is because, the Court said, it could not have led a reasonable officer to believe that an unconscious, semiconscious, or missing person feared injured or dead was in the home; we granted review.

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officers from entering a private home without a warrant; but there are certain exceptions.

For example, officers may enter without a warrant to fight a fire or when they are in pursuit of a fleeing felon.

If the situation confronting officers is serious enough to make immediate entry reasonable, the Fourth Amendment will allow it.

One such situation is the need to protect life or avoid imminent serious injury.

The defendants in this case don’t dispute this, but make two arguments why the officers still could not enter.

First, they claimed that the officers here were more interested in making arrests than in quelling violence.

They want us to consider the officers’ subjective motivation for entering the home.

Our cases reject this approach.

An action is reasonable under The Fourth Amendment as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively justify the action.

The defendants also argue that their conduct was not serious enough to justify the officers’ entry.

We think however, that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help, and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning.

The Fourth Amendment did not require the officers to wait until another blow rendered someone unconscious or semiconscious or worse before entering.

Police officer is not like a boxing referee who only steps in to stop a fight when it becomes too one-sided.

The way the officers entered the home was also reasonable.

After witnessing the punch, one of the officers opened the screen door and yelled in ‘Police’. When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again.

Given the noise and violence in the kitchen, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ‘knock-and-announce’ rule.

For reasons stated more fully in an opinion filed this morning with the clerk, we therefore reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah.

The decision is unanimous.

Justice Stevens has filed a concurring opinion.