JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Monday, May 22, 2006

Supreme Court backs warrantless police home entry in emergency
Jeannie Shawl at 10:09 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday ruled that police can enter a home without a warrant when they have not knocked or announced their presence if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that someone inside the home has been seriously injured or there is an imminent threat of injury. In Brigham County v. Stewart [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], four police officers in Brigham County, Utah, entered a home without a warrant screaming "Police!" when they observed a violent situation unfolding between household members through a window. They had tried to get the attention of the occupants before entering to no avail. Four adults arrested were all charged with misdemeanors - disorderly conduct, intoxication, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that the evidence should be suppressed [opinion text], but the US Supreme Court reversed this decision Monday, holding that the officers had a reasonable basis for entering the home without knocking or announcing their presence. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text], per Chief Justice Roberts, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Stevens. AP has more.

The Court did not grant certiorari in any new cases Monday, and among the cases the Court declined to hear was a challenge to the lethal injection [JURIST news archive] method of execution used by several states. Last month, the Court heard arguments in Hill v. McDonough [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report] where Hill, a death row inmate, is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Florida's method of lethal injection under 42 USC 1983 [text] even when all his other appeals have been exhausted. The Court is only considering the procedural issue in that case, and in denying certiorari in Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen, the Court has refused to review whether the three-drug cocktail used by several states constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. SCOTUSblog has more.






Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 African leaders to request Kenyan leaders be tried domestically
3:03 PM ET, May 24

 Nokia files patent infringement suit against HTC
12:38 PM ET, May 24

 Tenth Circuit hears Hobby Lobby appeal of health care ruling
11:51 AM ET, May 24

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org