On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Case v. Montana that directly impacts how police can enter homes during mental health crises and suicide-related calls. For criminal defense attorneys and anyone concerned about Fourth Amendment rights, this decision clarifies—but also raises concerns about—the “emergency aid exception” to the warrant requirement.
The Facts: A Suicide Threat Leads to a Police Shooting
William Case called his ex-girlfriend while intoxicated and threatened to kill himself. During the call, she heard what sounded like a gun being cocked and then a “pop” followed by silence. Fearing the worst, she called 911. When police arrived at Case’s home in Montana, they knew about his history of mental health issues and a previous incident suggesting he might attempt “suicide-by-cop.” Officers circled the house, saw an empty holster and what appeared to be a suicide note, but got no response when they knocked and yelled. After about 40 minutes, they entered without a warrant to “render emergency aid.”
When an officer approached a bedroom closet, Case emerged holding what appeared to be a gun. The officer shot him in the abdomen. Case survived and was charged with assaulting a police officer. He moved to suppress all evidence from the warrantless entry, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Court’s Ruling: “Objectively Reasonable Basis” Is the Standard
The Supreme Court affirmed Case’s conviction, holding that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an occupant is seriously injured or faces imminent injury. Importantly, the Court rejected Case’s argument that officers should need “probable cause”—the higher standard typically required for criminal investigations.
Justice Kagan, writing for the unanimous Court, explained that probable cause is “peculiarly related to criminal investigations” and doesn’t fit neatly into emergency, non-investigatory situations. Instead, courts should assess emergency-aid entries “on their own terms” rather than through the lens of criminal investigation standards.
Why This Matters for Criminal Defense
This decision has significant implications for anyone facing criminal charges that arise from a police entry during a mental health crisis or welfare check. Here’s what defendants and their attorneys need to understand:
The standard is lower than probable cause. While the Court declined to adopt the Montana Supreme Court’s “reasonable suspicion” language, it also refused to require probable cause. This means police have more leeway to enter homes during perceived emergencies than they would during criminal investigations.
However, the entry must be limited. The Court emphasized that an emergency-aid entry “provides no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers’ safety.” Evidence found during an overbroad search may still be suppressible.
Totality of circumstances matters. Courts will look at everything officers knew at the time—including the caller’s reports, the occupant’s history, and visual observations at the scene. A strong criminal defense strategy may involve challenging what officers actually knew versus what they claimed to know.
Justice Sotomayor’s Important Concurrence
Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence deserves close attention from defense attorneys. She highlighted the troubling reality that police interventions in mental health crises often escalate rather than de-escalate situations. She cited studies showing that individuals with serious mental health conditions are seven times more likely to be killed during police interactions, and that calls for help resulted in officers killing the very people they were called to assist in 178 cases over a two-year period.
Sotomayor suggested that in some cases, it may be more reasonable for officers to attempt de-escalation from a distance, contact family members, or call in specialized crisis intervention teams before entering a home. Defense attorneys should carefully scrutinize whether officers explored these alternatives before forcing entry.
What This Means for Your Rights
If you or a loved one faces charges arising from a police entry during a mental health crisis or welfare check, the constitutionality of that entry is still challengeable. Key questions include:
- Did officers have specific, articulable facts suggesting someone inside was injured or in imminent danger?
- Did officers limit their search to what was necessary to address the emergency?
- Did officers consider less intrusive alternatives before entering?
- Was any evidence seized beyond the scope of the emergency?
At The Chetson Firm, we carefully analyze the circumstances of every police entry to determine whether your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. A successful suppression motion can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Contact a Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney
Fourth Amendment issues require careful analysis by an experienced criminal defense lawyer. If you’re facing charges in North Carolina state or federal court stemming from a warrantless police entry, contact The Chetson Firm for a consultation. Attorney Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law—one of approximately 100 attorneys in North Carolina to hold this certification—and has the experience to protect your constitutional rights.