Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

A sensible emergency doctrine.

Article Excerpt
In Brigham City v. Stuart, (1) the Supreme Court dealt with a question that it had never directly addressed before, even though earlier opinions implied what the answer would be. (2) The question: Under what circumstances may the police enter a dwelling to prevent injury to the occupants or stop an ongoing crime?

In Stuart, the Brigham City, Utah, police responded to a "loud party" complaint at 3 a.m. When they arrived, they heard shouting from the house in question and found juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. On entering the yard, they saw--through a screen door and windows--a fracas. Four adults were attempting to restrain a juvenile who broke free and struck one of the adults in the face, drawing blood. Nobody responded when the police opened the screen door and announced their presence, and they entered the premises.

The adults were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. The police seized evidence of the crimes, though neither the Supreme Court nor the Utah high court say what it was. The trial court granted a motion to suppress that evidence, which was upheld twice on appeal in Utah.

Applying the emergency-aid doctrine, the state supreme court concluded that the injury the police witnessed was not sufficiently serious to justify warrantless entry into the home. Under the doctrine, a warrantless entry is justified if three criteria are met:

* police have an objectively reason able basis to believe that an emergency exists and there is an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life

* the search is not primarily motivated by intent to arrest and...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!