High Court Rules for Officers Who Entered Home; Dissent Hits ‘Micromanaging’

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that officers don’t need “ironclad proof” of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to enter a home under the emergency aid exception to the requirement for a search warrant.

The court granted cert and summarily ruled for the officers in a per curiam opinion (PDF), Michigan v. Fisher, SCOTUSblog reports.

Two dissenters protested that the court was "micromanaging" the affairs of state tribunals in a case based on officers' observations and fact-based issues.

The per curiam opinion summarized the situation encountered by officers responding to a complaint of a disturbance and a report of a man “going crazy." Through the window they could see a man who was screaming, bleeding and throwing things. Outside they saw a pickup truck with its front smashed, damaged fence posts and three broken windows on the home. When they knocked, the man told officers, “with accompanying profanity,” to get a warrant.

Officer Christopher Goolsby pushed open the door and observed the suspect with a gun, leading to charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. Michigan courts saw a Fourth Amendment violation and suppressed Goolsby’s observation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

“It does not meet the needs of law enforcement or the demands of public safety to require officers to walk away from a situation like the one they encountered here,” the court said. “Officers do not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, life-threatening’ injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.”

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Today, without having heard Officer Goolsby’s testimony, this court decides that the trial judge got it wrong,” Stevens wrote. “I am not persuaded that he did, but even if we make that assumption, it is hard to see how the court is justified in micromanaging the day-to-day business of state tribunals making fact-intensive decisions of this kind.”