Probable cause is not needed to justify warrantless entry into a home in emergency aid scenarios

In Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) the Supreme Court created the standard that officers can enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. But courts across the country were split on whether officers must have probable cause to believe such emergency assistance is needed. The Supreme Court held they do not.

Recently, in Case v. Montana, no. 24-624 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026)., the plaintiff argued that officers must have “probable cause to believe [an occupant is] seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury” to enter a home without a warrant, primarily relying on the Fourth Amendment’s recognition of the “sanctity of the home.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan rejected Case’s argument and reaffirmed the Brigham City standard. Specifically, the Court stated: “The question presented is whether that standard means that officers must have “probable cause” for the intrusion, as they typically would when investigating a crime. We hold it does not. The probable-cause requirement is rooted in, and derives its meaning from, the criminal context, and we decline to transplant it to this different one. Brigham City’s reasonableness standard means just what it says, with no further gloss.” Since the probable cause standard is “peculiarly related to criminal investigations,” officers do not need to meet that high standard for a welfare check. So long as an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that someone needs emergency assistance, no warrant is necessary.

Cities with police departments should ensure that their officers are aware of this broader standard because it should enhance law enforcement’s ability to assist those in need.