Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants in emergencies

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.

Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in going inside a home in 2000 after peering through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence, even though they could not announce their arrival over loud noise of a party.

"The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided," Roberts wrote.

The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

When the adults realized the officers were inside the house, they allegedly became abusive and were charged with disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor — all misdemeanors.

"The reason we brought this case was not about the charges, but the police officers' ability to respond to violence," said Assistant Utah Attorney General Jeffrey Gray, who argued the case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Our court found this wasn't serious enough, but officers in the midst of violence can't know how serious it will become. One punch can cause a concussion or rupture the spleen," he said.

Whether the three adult partygoers will face renewed prosecution will be up to Brigham City Attorney Stephen Hadfield, who was preparing a statement for release Monday.

"I would hope they just let it go," said Michael Studebaker, an Ogden lawyer who represented the defendants at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the case and appeals, and Studebaker said it wasn't worth it for prosecutors to reopen a misdemeanor case. The owners of the house where the party was held face similar charges, but that case has been on hold for the same appeals.

"We were disappointed with the decision, but I don't think it puts a nail in the coffin of defendants' rights," Studebaker said.