Welcome back to SCOTUS oral arguments and opinions.

Today we round out the first round of criminal law cases that the Supreme Court plans to hear in October.

We already previewed Villarreal, Barrett, Ellingberg, and Bowe.

This case, case versus Montana, involves a Fourth Amendment search and seizure question that's generated massive interest among law enforcement, civil rights advocates, and emergency responders across the country.

The court plans to hear this case on October 15th.

You're right.

This case has drawn immense attention.

We're talking about 35 states weighing in, with 34 of them filing briefs against the petitioner's position.

That's extraordinary for context listeners when you see that level of state involvement.

You know, this case touches some fundamental aspects of how law enforcement operates day to day.

This isn't just abstract constitutional theory.

This could change how police respond to suicide calls, medical emergencies, and welfare checks nationwide.

Absolutely.

So let's break down what this case is about at its core.

William Trevor case challenged Montana's application of the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

He asked the court to curtail this exception and to make it much harder for for police to enter homes in emergencies.

Right.

And that's what makes this case so fascinating.

Constitutionally, the emergency aid exception is well established doctrine.

The Supreme Court recognized it in Brigham City vs Stewart back in 2006.

The question here is what standard of certainty must officers have before they can invoke it?

Before we dive into the constitutional battle, let me read our listeners the key text that's at the heart of this dispute.

This is from the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

And no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

You know, that text is really the crux of this whole case notice it has two distinct parts.

The reasonableness clause that prohibits unreasonable searches and the warrant clause that sets standards for when warrants shall issue.

The question in this case is whether those two clauses work together or independently.

Exactly.

And while the warrant clause mentions probable cause, the reasonableness clause just says searches must be reasonable.

Case argues that probable cause should be required for all home entries, even emergency aid.

Montana argues that reasonableness is the touchstone, and sometimes that means less than probable cause.

Now here's something really important for our listeners to understand.

The Fourth Amendment's text doesn't actually mention an emergency aid exception anywhere.

This is entirely A judge made doctrine that the Court has developed over decades of cases.

That's a crucial point.

And as we discussed in our earlier coverage of Maryland versus Shatzer this year, we're seeing this Court sometimes take a harder look at judge made constitutional doctrines, particularly when they expand government power beyond what the text clearly authorizes.

We'll link to this episode in the show notes.

Right.

So Case could argue that if the Framers wanted an emergency exception, they would have written one into the text.

The fact that they didn't might suggest that even emergencies should require either a warrant or at minimum, probable cause.

That's very much in line with this Court's textualist approach.

On the flip side, Montana would say that the emergency aid exception flows naturally from the reasonableness Clause itself.

If the touchstone is reasonableness, then sometimes reasonable action in an emergency requires immediate response without the delay of getting a warrant or developing probable cause.

But that raises a fascinating question about judicial role.

Is the Court's job to craft practical exceptions that make sense in the real world or to stick closely to what the constitutional text actually says, even if that creates difficult situations?

And given this Court's recent skepticism of some expansive judge made doctrines, Case might be betting that that the Justices will be receptive to his argument that the emergency aid exception has grown too broad and needs to be reined in to what the text actually supports.

Great point.

I think that skepticism will bear out in oral arguments.

Alright, let's start with the background facts because they're crucial to understanding why this case even exists.

In September 2021, William Trevor case called his ex girlfriend, J H while alone at his home in Anaconda, Montana.

And this wasn't just a casual conversation.

Kayce was erratic and JH Assumed he'd been drinking.

More importantly, Kayce told JH that he was going to kill himself.

He became increasingly methodical about it, saying he was going to get a note.

Then JH Heard something that made this an emergency situation.

She heard a clicking sound, which she identified as the noise made when cocking a gun.

When she told Kayce she'd have to call the cops, he became more agitated and threatened that if police came, he would shoot them all too.

And here's the moment that triggered everything.

JH Heard a pop followed by nothing else, just dead air.

She believed that Kayce had pulled the trigger and immediately called 911.

Now, the responding officers weren't going in blind.

They knew Kayce from previous incidents involving suicide threats, alcohol abuse and violent behavior.

When they arrived at his home, they didn't immediately enter.

Instead, they tried to make contact and looked for corroborating evidence.

Right.

And this is important for the legal analysis.

Through a window, officers saw what Montana describes as distinct objective facts that corroborated their belief that Case was at home drunk with a gun and had written a suicide note.

They saw Case's keys on the table, an empty paddle holster, empty beer cans, and a notepad with what appeared to be a suicide note.

The officers prepared for about 18 minutes getting ballistic shields and staging medical personnel before entering through an unlocked front door.

During a protective sweep, Case emerged from a closet, pointing a handgun at Sergeant Pasha, who shot Case in the abdomen.

The officers then rendered medical aid.

And that's where the legal case begins.

Case was charged with assaulting a peace officer, and he moved to suppress all evidence, arguing the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding officers made the entry pursuant to an exigent circumstance.

Case, was convicted and sentenced to 60 years.

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed in a 4:3 decision, but with a vigorous dissent that highlights the split we're going to discuss.

And that split is exactly why the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The court is being asked whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring or whether the emergency aid exception requires probable cause.

So we've got this massive circuit split that's been brewing for years.

Some courts say officers need only an objectively reasonable basis and to believe someone needs emergency aid.

That's the standard from Brigham City v. Stuart.

Other courts say that's not enough.

You need full probable cause to believe an emergency exists.

Let me break down this split for our listeners because it's crucial.

Courts requiring only reasonable belief include the 1st, 8th and 10th circuits, along with Montana and three other state supreme courts.

They apply what Montana describes as objective, specific and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that a citizen is in need of help.

On the other side, courts requiring probable cause include the DC 2nd and 11th circuits, along with Nebraska and Colorado high courts.

These courts hold that officers must have probable cause to believe that a person is seriously injured or threatened with such injury before entering a home without a warrant.

And this isn't just academic.

The practical difference is enormous.

Under the reasonable belief standard, officers responding to a suicide call like this one might be able to enter based on the 911 call plus some corroborating observations.

Under a probable cause standard, they might need much more concrete evidence that someone is actually injured.

Let's dive into Case's three main arguments because they're trying to fundamentally reshape how we think about the Fourth Amendment's relationship to emergency response.

Case's first argument is historical and textual.

He contends that the Fourth Amendment, properly understood through its historical context, requires probable cause for all warrantless home entries, even emergency aid situations.

Specifically, Case argues that the common law that was in place when the Fourth Amendment was adopted required more than probable cause, not less, for warrantless home entries.

He claims the common law only allowed warrantless entries to stop violent affrays and even then, only if officers were certain that an affray was occurring because they could perceive it with their own senses.

So Case is saying the Framers would have expected an even higher standard than probable cause, essentially requiring officers to personally witness the emergency with their own eyes.

That would be a dramatic restriction compared to current practice.

Case's second major argument focuses on the the Fourth Amendment's core purpose.

He argues that the Fourth Amendment's chief purpose was to restrain discretionary government searches of the home and that allowing entries based on less than probable cause would undermine this fundamental protection.

The logic here is that homes deserve the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection, and any exception should be narrowly construed.

Case is essentially arguing that emergency aid entries have become too easy for police, creating opportunities for pretextual searches.

And Case's third argument is about the nature of probable cause itself.

He contends that while Montana tries to limit probable cause to criminal context, probable cause as the Framers understood it, was a more general safeguard against all unreasonable searches and seizures, whether or not conducted with a warrant.

In other words, cases trying to expand probable cause beyond its typical criminal context and make it a universal Fourth Amendment requirement.

That would be a significant departure from current doctrine.

Now let's look at Montana's response, because they're defending not just their own decision, but really the entire framework that's governed emergency response for for decades.

Montana's first major argument is constitutional structure and history.

They argue that the Fourth Amendment's text, properly understood, makes reasonableness, not probable cause, the ultimate test.

Montana emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment has two distinct clauses.

As they put it, the Amendment actually contains two different commands.

The Reasonableness Clause prohibits unreasonable searches, while the Warrant Clause sets standards for when warrants should issue.

Montana argues these clauses can operate independently.

They trace this back to founding era practices where officers conducting searches without valid warrants did so at his own risk, since they would be liable for trespass unless the jury found that his action was reasonable.

So Reasonableness, not probable cause, was the ultimate test.

Montana also provides extensive analysis of English common law, arguing it's much more permissive than Case suggests.

They contend that warrantless entries were allowed for pursuing felons based on knowledge or reasonable suspicion for hue and cry situations requiring only mere suspicion and under the doctrine of necessity for saving life.

That historical argument is crucial because it directly contradicts Key Case's claim that the common law was more restrictive than current practice.

Montana is saying Case has the history backwards.

Montana's second major argument is that Case's probable cause standard would effectively eliminate the emergency aid exception, creating deadly consequences.

This is where Montana gets really practical.

They argue that criminality inheres in the concept of probable cause because it's rooted in the criminal investigatory context.

Since emergency aid situations typically don't involve crimes, officers literally cannot develop probable cause.

As Montana puts it, officers do not and cannot possess probable cause to believe a crime has occurred when responding to prevent a suicide, conduct a welfare check on an older individual who has been out of contact or help some someone who has fallen and suffered a serious injury.

Because no crime has occurred, there's nothing for probable cause to attach to.

Montana warns that Case's preferred regime will turn American homes into the place where citizens who need urgent medical help died alone and in agony.

They emphasize that police are often first responders to medical emergencies, especially in rural areas like Montana.

And Montana's third argument is that even if you applied some version of Case's standard, the officers here did exactly what the Constitution should require.

They corroborated the emergency report with on the ground observations and acted based on objective facts.

Montana details how officers found Case's vehicle, confirming he was home, saw empty beer cans, an empty holster, and what appeared to be a suicide Note, all corroborating JH's specific claims about Kayce being home drinking, armed and preparing a suicide note.

The state argues this created an objectively reasonable basis to believe Case needed emergency aid, which is what Brigham City requires.

Even under a heightened standard, Montana contends the facts here would satisfy it.

Now let's talk about why this case is so significant.

Beyond just the legal doctrine, this could fundamentally reshape how emergency response works across the nation.

If the court sides with Case and requires probable cause, it could make it much harder for officers to respond to the kinds of situations where people most most need help.

Suicide attempts, drug overdoses, medical emergencies involving elderly people who haven't been heard from in days.

And it's not just about police.

In many rural areas, law enforcement officers are the de facto first line of emergency medical response.

Montana notes that every day police officers are first responders to calls involving suspected overdoses, strokes, diabetic comas and suicide attempts.

On the other hand, if the Court sides with Montana, it preserves the current system but potentially makes it easier for officers to enter homes based on relatively limited information that could create opportunities for abuse or pretextual entries.

The constitutional stakes are really about how we balance individual privacy rights against community safety needs, and Case represents the privacy side arguing for stronger protections, even if that makes emergency response harder.

Montana represents the safety side, arguing that saving lives sometimes requires accepting some reduction in privacy protection.

Looking ahead to oral arguments on October 15, what are you going to be listening for?

I'll be really interested to see how the Justices react to the circuit split.

This is exactly the kind of issue the Court exists to resolve when lower courts can't agree on fundamental constitutional questions.

Somebody has to provide national uniformity.

I'll be watching for questions about the practical consequences.

Do the Justices seem convinced by Case's argument that probable cause is workable in emergency situations?

Or or do they buy Montana's argument that this would effectively end emergency aid entries?

The historical arguments should be fascinating, too.

Both sides are making claims about what the Framers intended and what the common law required.

Given this Court's emphasis on original meaning, those historical disputes could be decisive.

Plus, I'm curious how the Justices will handle the fact that Brigham City is only about 20 years old.

That's relatively recent precedent, but it's also not so ancient that the Court would be reluctant to reconsider it if they think it was wrongly decided.

And given Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Caniglia specifically noting this issue needed resolution, I suspect we'll get some probing questions about exactly what standard should apply and how courts should implement it.

You know, this feels like one of those cases that could have immediate nationwide impact if the Court changes the standard every police department in America will need to retrain officers on when they can and can't enter homes for emergencies.

Absolutely.

And with 35 states weighing in, 34 of them opposing Case's position, you know, the practical stakes are enormous.

State and local governments clearly see this as a threat to their ability to protect public safety.

We'll definitely be covering the oral arguments on October 15, so make sure you're subscribed.

Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into Case versus Montana.

This is a perfect example of how seemingly technical constitutional questions can have profound real world consequences for public safety and individual rights.

As always, if you found this helpful, please rate and share the podcast.

And if you're a law enforcement officer, emergency responder, or civil rights advocate for, we'd love to hear your thoughts on how this issue plays out in practice.

Thanks for listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and opinions.

Remember, if you enjoyed this episode, please follow, rate and share.

Talk to you soon.