Case v. Montana: Possible Implications for Privacy Rights and the Emergency Aid Doctrine

by Molly McInnis, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This guarantee invokes the fundamental idea of the right to privacy.¹ The Fourth Amendment protects privacy by presuming that searches and seizures inside the home are unreasonable unless conducted pursuant to a valid warrant based on probable cause.² Nonetheless, because this Amendment is rooted in “reasonableness,” the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions.³ One of these exceptions is known as the Emergency Aid Doctrine.⁴ This carve-out balances the right to privacy within one’s home and the duties of law enforcement officers to respond when a person is in immediate need of aid.⁵ Case v. Montana, recently argued before the Supreme Court, addresses whether the Emergency Aid Doctrine requires probable cause or allows a lower standard to justify warrantless entry into a home.⁶ This decision is important not only for resolving a major circuit split, but it also indicates where the Court currently stands in the balance between privacy rights and law enforcement’s discretion to act as community caretakers.

This article discusses the practical consequences of the Court’s decision to require either probable cause or a lesser standard of belief under the Emergency Aid Doctrine. Part II outlines the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and reasonableness standard, explains the Emergency Aid Doctrine, and provides background on Case v. Montana. Part III analyzes the real-world implications of whether the Court reverses or affirms the Montana Supreme Court holding. Finally, Part IV offers a brief conclusion explaining why it is important for the Court to address this issue and what the decision suggests about the state of Fourth Amendment privacy today.

II. Background

Case v. Montana addresses a key issue in Fourth Amendment law: when may police exercise their community caretaking functions without a warrant under the Emergency Aid Doctrine? This case raises an important question about the scope of this exception and the level of certainty that officers must have before their actions are properly justified.

A. Fourth Amendment Searches

The Fourth Amendment contains two fundamental clauses.⁷ The first clause provides that all government searches and seizures must be reasonable.⁸ The second clause states that magistrates may only issue warrants supported by probable cause.⁹ Together, these guarantees protect an individual’s right to privacy.¹⁰ In practice, the Fourth Amendment protects privacy with the presumption that searches and seizures inside the home are unreasonable unless conducted pursuant to a valid warrant based on probable cause.¹¹ When a search is deemed unreasonable, the exclusionary rule bars any evidence obtained during that search from being used at trial.¹² This remedy is intended to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights, such as conducting searches without a warrant supported by probable cause.

In investigative law enforcement, probable cause is established “when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed (for an arrest) or that evidence of a crime is present in a specific location (for a search).”¹³ This requirement limits governmental intrusion by establishing a threshold of objective certainty that certain circumstances must exist before the government can enter a constitutionally protected area.¹⁴

In certain circumstances, the Court has permitted searches and seizures based on a less demanding standard than probable cause, known as “reasonable suspicion.”¹⁵ Reasonable suspicion considers whether, based on the information available to the officer, the police action was objectively reasonable.¹⁶ Unlike probable cause, the evidence supporting reasonable suspicion may be less reliable or certain.¹⁷ In practice, reasonable suspicion may justify specific limited police actions, such as a stop and frisk, but not a full search.¹⁸ Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion by prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant.¹⁹ Nonetheless, this standard is not without exceptions.²⁰

B. The Emergency-Aid Doctrine

One exception to the warrant requirement is the Emergency-Aid Doctrine.²¹ In addition to their investigatory duties, police officers also serve as community caretakers.²² In this role, they are responsible for protecting public safety and administering aid to those who are in immediate danger.²³ This exception permits officers to respond to emergency situations when there is too little time to obtain a warrant.²⁴ In legal terms, this is known as an exigency.²⁵ In Brigham City v. Stuart, the Court upheld the Emergency Aid Doctrine, explaining that the “need to assist other persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury” falls under the exigency exception to the warrant requirement.²⁶ Under this doctrine, officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance if they have “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.”²⁷ The Court emphasized that this objective approach does not consider the subjective intent of the officer.²⁸

However, there is one question the Court has not yet answered: whether the Emergency Aid Doctrine requires probable cause or a lesser standard of reasonable belief that an emergency exists.²⁹ Federal circuit courts are divided on this issue, making it crucial for the Supreme Court to guide individuals, law enforcement, and lower courts in protecting the right to privacy.³⁰

C. Case v. Montana

Case v. Montana addresses “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.”³¹

One evening in September 2021, law enforcement responded to Case’s home after his ex-girlfriend, J.H., called to report a phone conversation she had with him earlier that night, during which he threatened to commit suicide.³² J.H. told police that Case had been drinking, acting “erratic,” and implied he planned to write a suicide note over the phone.³³ She further reported that, during their call, she heard a “pop” that she testified sounded like a trigger being pulled.”³⁴ After the “pop,” their call continued, but Case had become unresponsive.”³⁵ Concerned for his safety, J.H. contacted the police to report what she had heard.³⁶

Three officers and J.H. arrived at Case’s home shortly after her report.³⁷ J.H. expressed that she was concerned that Case might have harmed himself.³⁸ The officers testified they did not consider securing a warrant to enter the home because the situation “wasn’t a criminal thing” and their intention was “to assist him,” suggesting that they were relying on the Emergency Aid Doctrine.³⁹ Case did not respond when the officers knocked and announced their presence.⁴⁰ Two of the officers looked through the windows of Case’s home for signs of injury or danger.⁴¹ They observed empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad on the table.⁴² The officers were also aware of Case’s history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues.⁴³

Forty minutes after their arrival, the officers decided to enter the home without a warrant.⁴⁴ When entering through the unlocked front door, they announced themselves and continued to do so while moving through the home.⁴⁵ As an officer searched the upstairs bedroom, Case, hiding inside the closet, abruptly “jerked open” the curtain covering the closet.⁴⁶ The officer noticed a “dark object” near Case’s waist, which he later testified he believed to be a gun, and she “instantaneously […] shot Case in the abdomen.”⁴⁷ Case fell to the floor and officers immediately began to administer first aid.⁴⁸ Moments later, one of the officers secured a handgun lying in the laundry hamper next to the closet where Case had been standing.⁴⁹

Case was charged with assault on a Peace Officer.⁵⁰ Before trial, Case moved to suppress the handgun and other evidence from his home on the grounds that the police did not have probable cause to enter his home without a warrant to deliver emergency aid.⁵¹ The case conceded that an emergency can justify a warrantless entry but argued that this exception still requires the finding of probable cause that an emergency existed.⁵² If the court had found that the entry required probable cause, it may have deemed the officer’s search impermissible and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, evidence of the gun could not have been admitted against Case. However, the trial court rejected Case’s argument that probable cause was necessary, finding that the entry was permissible under the Emergency Aid Doctrine, and admitted the gun into evidence.⁵³

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Case’s argument that the Emergency Aid Doctrine requires a finding of probable cause that an emergency exists.⁵⁴ The majority explained that “when a warrantless entry is [entirely] divorced from a criminal investigation and is otherwise reasonable, the probable cause element is ‘superfluous’ and should not impede an officer’s duty to ensure the well-being of a citizen in imminent peril.”⁵⁵

In June 2025, the Supreme Court granted Case’s petition to review the case and heard the oral arguments in October 2025.⁵⁶ The attorney for Case argued that the Court’s precedent has not “allowed state officials to force their way into someone’s home without a warrant or probable cause.”⁵⁷ Therefore, the Emergency Aid Doctrine should require probable cause.⁵⁸ The state, however, emphasized that the “Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, [but] not all warrantless ones.”⁵⁹ The state further argued that Case’s probable cause requirement is not supported by exigency exception precedents and would force officers to stand outside the home of a dying man, “calculating legal thresholds instead of saving his life.”⁶⁰

III. Discussion

As discussed, Case v. Montana tasks the Court with the decision of whether the Emergency Aid Doctrine requires a finding of probable cause or a lesser standard of belief. This decision will ultimately hinge on the balance between the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and law enforcement’s responsibility as community caretakers. The Court’s ruling will indicate where it stands in this balance today. This section will examine how reversing or affirming the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling could affect modern law enforcement practices and Fourth Amendment rights.

A. Implications of a Reversal

If the Court reverses the Montana Supreme Court holding, it will not only establish a probable cause requirement under the Emergency Aid Doctrine but also reinforce the Fourth Amendment right to privacy within the home. In Case, this new standard would likely require the court to remand the matter to determine whether probable cause existed when the police entered Case’s home. However, such a ruling would carry broader implications.

As discussed, probable cause exists “when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed (for an arrest) or that evidence of a crime is present in a specific location (for a search).”⁶¹ This definition, however, in the context of investigatory police work rather than the community-caretaking circumstances at issue in Case. Therefore, the court must first establish how the probable cause standard should be framed pursuant to the Emergency Aid Doctrine. In this context, probable cause will likely require facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge that would lead a reasonable person to believe an emergency exists. Consequently, officers would be required to establish a higher degree of certainty that such exigency exists before entering a home without a warrant.

Establishing this probable cause requirement would strengthen Fourth Amendment privacy protections in the home by requiring officers to refrain from entering during a potential emergency-aid situation unless they have sufficient, reliable evidence that would objectively lead a reasonable person to believe an exigency exists. This requirement minimizes officer discretion when deciding whether to enter a home with less reliable or uncertain evidence. Ideally, this constraint would protect citizens’ privacy rights by preventing mistaken or unwarranted home entries and by reinforcing public confidence that the state will not exercise such intrusive authority unless the facts truly justify it.

Another implication of a reversal would be slower officer response times in uncertain situations. If an officer responds to administer aid, but the evidence is borderline on whether it supports probable cause that such an exigency exists, they may refrain from entering the home right away. To avoid violating the probable cause requirement, officers may spend additional time gathering evidence and deliberating whether a warrantless entry would be justified. This may be beneficial in situations when no true emergency exists, as it prioritizes and protects the privacy of the home. However, in borderline cases where someone truly needs aid, this threshold may limit an officer’s ability to provide assistance. In this balance, prioritizing individual privacy may come at the cost of increased risk for those in need of aid.

A probable cause standard would also strengthen privacy protections by reducing pretextual searches within homes. Brigham sets forth an objective standard under the Emergency Aid Doctrine for determining whether the officer had a reasonable basis for believing an occupant of a home needed emergency aid.⁶² This objective approach does not consider the subjective intent of the officer.⁶³ Consequently, this test may leave open the possibility of pretextual home entries by officers invoking the Emergency Aid Doctrine.

In other words, an officer could assert they entered a home to provide emergency aid while being motivated by investigatory purposes, provided there were sufficient objective indicators of an emergency. Upon lawful entry, police may seize physical evidence without a warrant pursuant to the Plain View Doctrine.⁶⁴ If officers only need reasonable suspicion to justify entry under the Emergency Aid Doctrine, this lower threshold could be exploited to gather evidence more easily. Rather than responding to a genuine emergency, officers may manufacture or exaggerate an emergency, or rely on borderline situations, to collect evidence for investigative purposes. This raises concerns about potential pretextual abuse of this exception. By requiring Brigham’s “reasonable basis” to be supported by probable cause, the Court would raise the standard of evidence necessary to justify entry into a home to administer aid. Therefore, if an officer is primarily motivated by investigatory reasons, rather than a genuine need to assist an occupant who is injured or in immediate danger, it may be more difficult to justify entry under the Emergency Aid Doctrine if no true exigency exists. A probable cause standard would strengthen the privacy of the home by making it more difficult for officers to invoke the Emergency Aid Doctrine, especially when the circumstances do not clearly suggest that an exigency exists.

B. Implications of an Affirmance

By affirming the Montana Supreme Court decision, the Court would ultimately reject a probable cause standard under the Emergency Aid Doctrine and strengthen police discretion for entering the home without a warrant under this exception. For Case, this outcome would indicate that the officers’ entry was justified, and the gun was rightly admitted into evidence. Nonetheless, just as a reversal, an affirmance would also indicate broader legal consequences.

It is unclear whether a lesser standard would suggest a “reasonable suspicion” threshold or some other evidentiary level of indicating that an emergency exists within the home. However, such a standard would likely require evidence that is less certain and less reliable than that required for probable cause. Ultimately, this test would restrict individuals’ privacy within the home while expanding law enforcement’s authority to enter the home as community caretakers.

A less demanding standard than probable cause would expand law enforcement’s authority by diminishing the right to privacy within the home. Fourth Amendment law has historically held the home to a special status, subject to strengthened protections against governmental intrusions.⁶⁵ The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle by characterizing “physical entry of the home” as “the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”⁶⁶ Therefore, society has come to expect heightened protections, such as the probable cause requirement, even when a warrant exception applies. Consequently, a lower standard than probable cause would undermine this special status by granting law enforcement expanded authority to enter the home. As discussed, a lesser standard would presumably require evidence that is less certain and less reliable to justify entry under the Emergency Aid Doctrine. Therefore, the balance slightly tips towards officer authority to enter the home, even when they are not entirely certain an emergency exists. If the court chooses to affirm the Montana Supreme Court Holding, the ruling may signify the Court’s willingness to relinquish some privacy rights in exchange for expanded law enforcement authority to act under the Emergency Aid Doctrine.

Another consequence of expanded law enforcement under a less demanding standard is the potential for faster officer response times. When responding to an emergency, officers feel less compelled to spend a lot of time analyzing whether the facts would justify their entry into a home. This result may result in both positive and negative impacts. First, it may increase the likelihood of mistaken entries in borderline situations. If officers act on suspicion or facts that are not fully reliable, they may enter a home under circumstances that do not justify entry under the Emergency Aid Doctrine or when there is no emergency at all. This trend heightens the risk of constitutional violations if officers begin to enter homes without probable cause, a warrant, or a valid justification under the Emergency Aid Doctrine. Nonetheless, faster response times may also allow officers to more readily access and help individuals who are truly in need of immediate aid. This standard would strengthen law enforcement’s ability to act as community caretakers by allowing them to intervene in situations necessitating officer assistance. Here, the Court must weigh the risk of constitutional violations resulting from mistaken entries and the need to provide aid to those vulnerable to imminent harm.

IV. Conclusion

This decision is important because it will indicate where the current Court stands in the balance between the Fourth Amendment fundamental right to privacy in the home and officer discretion to act as community caretakers. Under the current circuit split, it may be unclear to officers how to respond in potential emergencies, to individuals what their privacy rights entail, and to lower courts on how the law should be applied. The outcome of Case v. Montana will not only have broad legal consequences but will also define how far the Court will allow law enforcement authority to reach into the homes of the public.

Cover Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Molly McInnis

References

1
Brooks Holland, Case v. Montana, A.B.A. (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/case-v-montana/ [https://perma.cc/5EGQ-V7LS].
2
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).
3
Id.
4
Id. at 403-04.
5
Holland, supra note 1.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).
12
Suppression of Evidence, Cornell L. Sch.: Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suppression_of_evidence [https://perma.cc/ED6S-5QH8] (last visited Nov. 17, 2025).
13
Probable Cause, Cornell L. Sch.: Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause [https://perma.cc/M2QM-RZKA] (last visited Nov. 16, 2025).
14
Holland, supra note 1.
15
Id.
16
Id.; Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990).
17
Probable Cause, supra note 13.
18
Holland, supra note 1; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 10 (1968).
19
Emergency Aid, Cornell L. Sch.: Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/category/keywords/emergency_aid [https://perma.cc/BKB6-H74Q] (last visited Nov. 16, 2025).
20
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).
21
Id.
22
Espinosa v. City & Cty. of S.F., 598 F.3d 528, 534 (9th Cir. 2010).
23
Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 403.
24
Missouri v. McNeely, 568, U.S. 141, 148-49 (2013).
25
Id.
26
Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 403.
27
Id. at 400.
28
Id. at 402.
29
Jay E. Grenig, When Does the Emergency Aid Exception Permit and Officer’s Warrantless Entry of a Home?, 2005-06 Marq. L. Scholarly Commons 404, 407 (2006).
30
Id.
31
Case v. Montana, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/case-v-montana/ [https://perma.cc/2WQL-QFMB] (last visited Nov. 16, 2024).
32
State v. Case, 417 Mont. 354, 357 (2024).
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Id. at 357-58.
38
Id. at 358.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
The officers had previously responded to a situation in which Case “threatened suicide at the local school where he taught,” prompting a lockdown because he had brought a weapon onto the premises. In another incident, officers responded to a report that Case was under the influence and behaving erratically in his truck. When the officers arrived and ordered him to exit his vehicle, Case reached back into the truck despite warnings not to. The officers interpreted this conduct as an attempt to provoke a defensive response, what they described as possible “suicide-by-cop.” Id.
44
Id.
45
Id. at 358-59.
46
Id. at 359.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Holland, supra note 1.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
State v. Case, 417 Mont. at 364.
56
Holland, supra note 1.
57
Amy Howe, Court Hears Arguments on When Police May Enter a Home Without a Warrant, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 16, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/court-hears-arguments-on-when-police-may-enter-a-home-without-a-warrant/ [https://perma.cc/49SB-W7SK].
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Probable Cause, supra note 13.
62
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 400 (2006).
63
Id. at 402.
64
The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize physical evidence if the following conditions are met: (1) the object is in plain view, (2) the incriminating nature of the object is “immediately apparent,” (3) the police have a lawful right to be in the location where they discover the object, and (4) the police have lawful access to the object they seize. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37(1990).
65
Thomas Crocker, The Fourth Amendment at Home, 96 Ind. L.J. 167, 167 (2020).
66
Id. at 168.