Utah Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Gray, who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said the ruling "reaffirms that the Fourth Amendment does not keep officers from doing what we expect officers to do — protect the public from harm."

Hadfield said the earlier rulings by the Utah courts had "greatly restricted the ability of the Brigham City Police Department to protect Brigham City residents and properly respond to disturbances."

But Mark Studebaker, an Ogden attorney who argued on behalf of those arrested that night, said the top court's ruling sets a "huge" precedent that is "pretty damaging all around."

"I think this is a clear smack down on the Fourth Amendment," he said.

He said this could open the door to police witnessing things inside homes — even something as simple as him wrestling with his son, and deciding it was a violent enough situation to enter and potentially make arrests.

He said it is now up to the state if it wants to spend taxpayer money in pursuing the rest of the case.

"I hope they would find better use for it," Studebaker said.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion calling it "an odd flyspeck of a case" and that while he agreed with the court's decision he remains "persuaded that my vote to deny the State's petition for certiorari was correct."

"The court's unanimous opinion restating well-settled rules of federal law is so clearly persuasive that it is hard to imagine the outcome was ever in doubt," he wrote.

He questioned why the three lower courts all found a Fourth Amendment violation in the first place, why the prosecution fought this all the way to the Supreme Court and why the court opted to hear it.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com