Case v. Montana  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before entering our homes. That very American principle has roots in English law, in the spirit of the 18th century prime minister who said that “the poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.” But another doctrine, the “community caretaking” standard, emerged from an understanding that the police may, in certain emergencies, enter a home without a warrant. In Brigham City v. Stuart (2006), the Court allowed police entry when there is an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing that someone inside is in danger of physical harm or in need of aid. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 found, in Caniglia v. Strom, limits to this “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement. Last week, however, the Court took a step back in favor of warrantless entry in Case v. Montana, finding reason in common law to uphold the conviction of William Case. A Montana resident, Case had repeatedly threatened suicide. When police showed up to perform “a welfare check” at Case’s home after receiving a distressing call from his girlfriend, they saw an empty holster and what appeared to them to be a suicide note on a table. Case had also threatened to kill any police officer who entered his home. The police eventually entered Case’s home without a warrant, found Case hiding in a closet with a black object in his hand, and shot him in the stomach. Case survived and went to court to seek the exclusion of any evidence obtained from this warrantless intrusion. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him. The facts of this case, like the proverbial camel’s nose thrust under a tent, are undeniably ugly. But ugly or not, Case v. Montana is still a camel’s nose – one that portends danger for privacy. This case has two underlying complexities to keep in mind whenever the Court reviews future cases on the emergency entry exception. The first concern is the Court’s central reliance on common law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, wrote that: “From before the founding through the present day, the common law has generally permitted a private citizen to enter another’s house and property in order to avert serious physical harm.” The problem with Justice Gorsuch’s reliance on this “accumulated learning of common law” is that it is still trumped by the U.S. Constitution. There is no “community caretaking exception” to be found in the Fourth Amendment. A second danger is that the community caretaking exception will be broadened. In our brief to the Court, we warned about about the “diluting effect such a low bar for emergency-aid searches would cause in other contexts – especially regarding electronic devices … it seems inevitable that lowering the burden for warrantless home invasion would lower the burdens for warrantless invasion of all other repositories of private information.” Millions of Americans have sensitive information in their phones – apps for alcohol, drug, and gambling addictions; apps for prayer requests; apps for pregnancy symptoms; apps for financial issues; and apps for romance. Cellphones can track Americans’ location, and data that reveals where an American worships, banks, organizes political activities, and maintains a network of friend and associates. When the Court lowers the bar for warrantless entry into a home, it weakens constitutional protections everywhere else – especially in a world where our most intimate lives reside on digital devices. If this logic continues unchecked, today’s emergency entry into a house could tomorrow become emergency entry into a phone, a cloud account, or an entire digital life. That would be the kind of “general warrant” the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent. Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed