Chemerinsky: The Fourth Amendment comes back to the Supreme Court

"From 2021 until 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide one case involving traditional Fourth Amendment issues-such as what is a search, when is a warrant required and whether the exclusionary rule applies. I taught Criminal Procedure - Investigations in the fall semester and struggled to explain to my students why the justices seemingly had lost interest in the Fourth Amendment. But this term, there are two Fourth Amendment cases, one already decided and one to be argued this spring."

"The Supreme Court long has stressed that the home is special under the Fourth Amendment and that generally a warrant is required for the police to enter someone's house to search or arrest. But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of these is exigent circumstances that allow police to enter without a warrant if an emergency justifies doing so."

"In Brigham City v. Stuart (2006), the Supreme Court held that police could enter a home without a warrant if they had an objectively reasonable belief that someone is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury. The police in Brigham City, Utah, had received a call about a loud party. When they arrived at the house, officers saw two teenagers in the backyard drinking beer. They also saw, through a screen door and window, that there was a fight in the kitchen between four adults and a teenager. The police entered the house without a warrant."

Between 2021 and 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide any case resolving core Fourth Amendment questions about what constitutes a search, when warrants are required, or the exclusionary rule. This term features two Fourth Amendment cases, one decided and one pending. The Court emphasizes special home protection and generally requires warrants for searches or arrests in a house, while recognizing exceptions such as exigent circumstances for emergencies. In Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) the Court permitted warrantless entry where officers reasonably believed someone faced serious or imminent injury; facts included officers observing a violent altercation through a screen door and seeing minors drinking.

Read at ABA Journal