The Constitution under Attack

I gotta wonder what is going through the minds of the SCOTUS justices sometimes.  I mean, Trump, Trump, Trump aside, it's amazing how they find the time to muck up the Constitution so much.

What?  Muck up the Constitution?!  What'd the SCOTUS do this time?!? 

Back in 2021, police in Anaconda, Montana received a 911 call from William Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend saying he was suicidal and might try “suicide by cop.”  

Important to note: His EX girlfriend (whom I am sure only had his best interests in mind) called the police.  Thing is, I've had ex-whatevers and they NEVER have my best interest in mind.  Heck, tell me I'm wrong but are there any EX's out in people-land who aren't out to screw you the first chance they get?!?

Anyway, and moving on, officers arrived at Case's residence and start looking in windows but saw no immediate emergencies.  Waiting another 40 minutes outside the house (during which time they called their supervisor to assess what, if any, risk they might have if they were to break down the door under the pretext of an emergency discussing whether or if Case might ambush them.

NOTE: they were seeking advice as to what risk/emergency THEY might have if they broke down the door - not whether there was any risk to Case.  Yeah, so very altruistic they were. 

Note also that in all that 40 minutes, they never tried to get a warrant to break down the door (which they could have) nor did they have probabe cause (because of the presumed emergency). Police eventually broke down the front door with rifles in hand and ballistic shields.  

Confronting the defendant, Case emerged holding an object (believed to be a gun) and an officer shot him.  Case was later convicted of assaulting an officer and challenged the admissibility of evidence, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

So, let's recap:  

1. Police are called saying defendant is going to shoot himself (can you say swatting?).
2. Police wait 40 minutes before entering.
3. Without probable cause (as is generally necessary under the 4th Amendment), police enter without a warrant (you know, because of emergency), 
4. Police confront and shoot the defendant and arrest they guy they're supposed to be helping for assaulting a police officer.

Yeah, sounds like something police would do.

Anyway, Case loses at the trial and appellate levels.  The SCOTUS also rules in favor of the State (of Montana) in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624.  In their holding (written by Justice Kagan), the court held that police can enter a home wihout a warrant to render emergency aid if they have

"an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside is seriously inujured or facing serious harm."

The Court reasoned that probable cause is rooted in criminal investigations and ill-suited to non-investigatory welfare checks (which is total BS!).  Because the officers reasonably believed Case might have shot himself or was in immediate danger, their entry was constitutionally valid.

A few problems stick out for me.

Before Case, the generally understood standard for police entering a person's home was that warrantless entry into a home usually required:

1. Probable cause

2. Exigent circumstances

After Case, in cases of "emergency aid" or "welfare checks," Police only need:

“Objectively reasonable belief” that someone is seriously injured or in danger.  This is a significantly lower threshold than probable cause.  Consequently,  civil liberties groups argue the decision:

• blurs the line between exigent circumstances and welfare checks

• makes home entry easier to justify after the fact.

A few other problems I see is that why do courts seeminly ALWAYS (that's "always" as in every bloody time) give deference to police holding out a objective standard based on how a cop perceives a situation.  Turns out, I'm not the only one thinking this as many legal scholars have raised exactly the concern.  Critics argue the standard:

1. Allows post-hoc justification

If officers can articulate any reasonable emergency theory later, courts often accept it.

2. Encourages pretext

Police could enter homes under a “welfare check” theory even whether or not they suspect a crime is being committed.

3. Weakens the home’s constitutional protection

The Supreme Court historically called the home the “core of the Fourth Amendment.”  Lowering the standard will definately erodes that.

4. Creates escalation risks

Situations like this one can become violent precisely because police enter.  However, a bigger problem where critics point to is:

1. Someone falsely reports a suicide threat.

2. Police perform a welfare check.

3. Officers claim they believed someone inside was in danger.

4. Forced entry occurs without probable cause.

Because the standard is objective reasonableness, courts will often (that's "often" as in every bloody time) defer to what officers say they perceived at the time.

How might this play out?  Picture it, an ex-girl or boyfriend or a Karen of a neighbor or a political opponent decides to swat someone they don't like and calls the police filing a fake report.

Police respond, break down the door and, later, claim to have seen a gun or some other weapon and charge everyone inside the house with crimes that are trumped up to ensure the police aren't later sued and lose their precious qualified immunity.

 

We didn't need Case for this to happen because it happens all the time.

Wait, what?!  You're saying there are instances where people had someone file a false claim against them, police break down their door and then charge them with crimes that didn't happen or were trumped up?

1. Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (2025)

Facts:

• FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the wrong house in Atlanta.

• They broke the door, threw a flashbang, and handcuffed the residents, including frightening a child.

• Agents later realized they had the wrong address.

2. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989)

Facts:

• Police arrested a man and charged him with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

• At trial he was acquitted of the resisting arrest charge, the more serious charge.

Legal significance of this case is that the court allowed a malicious prosecution claim, noting that police sometimes add unsupported charges.

The court warned that allowing this practice would permit officers to add unsupported serious charges with impunity.

Why this matters: Courts recognize that officers sometimes add charges like resisting arrest or obstruction to justify an encounter.  

3. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

Facts:

• Police broke into a home without properly announcing authority or purpose.

• The defendant reacted by attempting to close the door.

Holding:  The Supreme Court ruled the arrest unlawful because officers failed to follow required procedures before breaking in.  The Court emphasized that the home has special constitutional protection.

6. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest can be lawful even if the officer cited the wrong crime, as long as probable cause existed for some crime.

Why this matters:  This rule allows officers to arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

The underlying situation here is that courts see that civil rights litigation frequently shows a pattern:

1. Police enter a home (sometimes the wrong house).

2. Residents react (confusion, refusal, self-defense).

3. Officers charge them with:

   • resisting arrest

   • obstruction

   • assault on an officer

4. Charges are later dismissed, but the encounter is legally justified by the arrest.

Courts often analyze these cases under: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (civil rights lawsuits), Fourth Amendment unlawful search, and false arrest / malicious prosecution.

Under Case, however, much of these protections will be tossed in favor of a tyrannical police force who are legally able to

• lie to people to get them to admit to things they didn't do,
• arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

Probably the BIGGEST problem with all this (and what the SCOTUS blew past) is that police are, by their very nature, tyrannical and will ALWAYS (that's "always as in every bloody time) look for reasons to break the law. 

You read that right - break the law.  Police do it all the time. 

In this case, what Case does is give police another bad reason to violate the Constitution and break down doors to private residences under the pretense of an emergency or welfare check.

I mean, do you really (that's "really" as in pull your collective heads out of your collective backsides and face reality) believe police will only kick down a door when they think there is an emergency?

Hells Bells, police will use Case to kick down doors with reckless abandon if it so pleases them.  You know it, I know it and the police know it. 

And the reason for this is because Police are like politicians - always looking for ways to muck up the Constitution.  Police will always be looking for ways to arrest and terrorize people because, otherwise, what are they going to do with themselves?  Get fat on donuts?!

Well, yes, police do (seeminly) have a donut fetish but the bottom line to all
this is that cases like Case only do one thing: undermine the rights of we the people.  

As long as courts continue to defer to what is reasonable to the police/government in every (that's "every" as in every bloody time) situation, the rights of we the people will continue to errode.

Republican, Independent, or democrat, it behooves everyone the necessity to stand up these blatant attacks on the Constitution and fight against cases like Case and their ilk.