Case v. Montana

[Rush2112Man]

The SCOTUS decision in Case v. Montana allowing law enforcement the reasonable belief backdoor argument into your front door is another example of 4th Amendment erosion. Am I wrong?

[srothstein]

I am not sure if this is an erosion of the Fourth Amendment or not. The exception to the warrant rule that it addresses is a long standing rule and it was just to clarify it a little.

The problem with the rule is that it is based on something that doesn't truly exist. It is the assumption that the police have a duty to take care of the community and its members. So, SCOTUS said if they have an objectively reasonable belief that someone is being or was injured, they can enter to provide aid. But SCOTUS has also ruled that they have no obligation to do so for any specific member of the public. This creates a contradictory answer to the question "Is the government responsible for taking care of me?"

I believe the answer to this question is, and always should be, no. The government is not my parent or my spouse and they have no obligation to take care of me. As a matter of fact, I don't believe they have any moral or legal authority to take care of me. The belief that the government should take care of me leads to laws that stop me from making my own decisions on what risks I am willing to take. As an example, there is a risk to wearing a seat belt. It can cause further harm to me if I am in an accident. I can freely stipulate that there is a greater risk of harm to me if I do not wear a seat belt and am in an accident, but the risk is something I should be allowed, as a rational adult, to decide on for myself.

In the specific case that the court ruled on, I believe they made a very bad decision. Did the officers have an "objectively reasonable belief?" I don't believe so. The call to 911 was from an ex-girlfriend. Not knowing who broke up with whom and what the reasons for the end of the relationship were, it is extremely hard to say believing in the call was objectively reasonable. Second part was they saw an empty holster and what appeared to be a suicide note. I cannot dispute the empty holster, but how did they determine it was a suicide note before they entered the house. Could they read it through the window, or did they just see a piece of paper and jump to the conclusion it was a suicide note? Again, the reliance on this is not, IMO, objectively reasonable.

Do the police have a duty to stop someone from ending their own life, if no one else is endangered by the act? I do not have a really good answer for that, but I lean towards no, they don't. I believe we should restrict this community caretaker entry to when there is a probable crime taking place. If someone is being assaulted or robbed or something similar, yes the police can enter in an emergency with no probable cause (just reasonable suspicion). But this was the wrong case to allow it to happen, IMO.

[Rush2112Man]

Steve,

I appreciate your well thought out response.
Police waited approximately 40 minutes before entering the property, and did so only after discovering the front door was unlocked. What’s the saying about locked doors?

Rush2112