Washington – Police officers may go into a home uninvited and without a search warrant to break up a fight they have seen through a window, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Usually, homes are off-limits to the police and government searches, except when officers have obtained a warrant from a judge.
In the past, however, the court has said there is an exception for emergencies, such as a fire.
In Monday’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said a fight in progress is the kind of emergency that justifies quick action by the police.
“The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties,” he said. “An officer is not a like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided.”
The unanimous decision overturned rulings by the Utah state courts, which held that a loud party and a drunken fight did not give police reason enough to enter a home without a warrant.
The case began in the early morning hours of July 23, 2000, when police in Brigham City, Utah, responded to a complaint about a loud party. The four officers heard shouting from inside the house, including calls to “Stop! Stop!”
When they walked down the driveway, they saw two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. From there, they saw through the kitchen window a young man swing his fist and strike one of the adults in the face, drawing blood.
The officers, shouting “police,” entered the kitchen door, broke up the fight and arrested several of the adults for being drunk and disorderly. The partygoers in turn demanded the police leave the premises.
When the Utah courts suppressed the evidence against the adults, state prosecutors urged the court to hear the case to clarify what is considered an emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Roberts said the officers did not need a warrant because they were breaking up a fight, not searching the premises. Moreover, they did not need to knock on the door before entering because they would not have been heard.
Also Monday, the court:
Rejected an appeal from Tennessee death-row inmate Abu- Ali Abdur’Rahman, who wanted the court to declare that the drug protocol used in most executions amounts to cruel punishment.
Refused to hear an appeal in the case of a mentally ill man, Andrew Goldstein, whose conviction was overturned in the death of a woman pushed into the path of a subway train in New York.
Said it would not consider the case of convicted murderer James Hamm, who graduated from law school and is being thwarted in his efforts to become a practicing attorney in Arizona.
Declined for the second time to get involved in a child custody fight between a San Diego woman and her former lesbian partner.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
