FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Departments : Point of Law

Constitutional Home Entry

Remember these 10 ways to justify entering private premises.

February 10, 2014  |  by Devallis Rutledge - Also by this author

Photo: iStock
Photo: iStock

"A man's home is his castle," whether it's a mansion, condo, apartment, mobile home, motel room, or camping tent. Private residences enjoy the highest levels of Fourth Amendment protection against governmental intrusion. "The Fourth Amendment protects an individual's privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual's home." (Payton v. New York)

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized only a limited number of ways for law enforcement officers to justify lawful entry. An entry made without one or more of these justifications may cause both suppression of evidence and civil liability, so the list should be reviewed from time to time. Here are the 10 most common ways to get inside a home without violating the Fourth Amendment.

1. Search warrant. Warrants are the preferred method of justifying entry. (U.S. v. Ventresca) A search warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized allows forcible entry, following knock-notice (or excused non-compliance), and imbues officers with the authority to break open a door or window if necessary, provided officers do not inflict "excessive or unnecessary damage to property." (U.S. v. Ramirez)

2. Arrest warrant. "An arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within." (Payton v. New York) An arrest warrant does not allow entry into a third party's home to arrest someone who may be inside but does not reside there. (Steagald v. U.S.)

3. Consent. "To the Fourth Amendment rule ordinarily prohibiting warrantless entry of a person's house as unreasonable per se, one exception recognizes the validity of searches with the voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority." (Georgia v. Randolph) Apparent authority can also be sufficient. (Illinois v. Rodriguez)

4. Rescue. "Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury, if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house is in need of immediate aid." (Michigan v. Fisher)

5. Threat to officer or public safety. "The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others." (Warden v. Hayden)

6. Prevent imminent destruction of evidence. "The need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence has long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search." (Kentucky v. King)

7. Fresh pursuit of a dangerous suspect. If you're pursuing a suspect from a just-committed crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury, you may enter and search for the suspect in a private residence into which he flees.

For example, where officers entered and searched a house into which an armed robber had taken refuge less than five minutes earlier, the Supreme Court said this: "Neither the entry without warrant to search for the robber nor the search for him without warrant was invalid. Officers acted reasonably when they entered the house and began to search for the robber and for weapons which he had used in the robbery or might use against them." (Warden v. Hayden)

8. Prevent escape of detainee/arrestee. You may enter to capture a person who retreats inside when you lawfully attempt to detain or arrest him while he is in a public place. "A suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by the expedient of escaping to a private place." (U.S. v. Santana)

The Supreme Court also said in Santana that a person standing at his open doorway is sufficiently exposed to public view as to be "in a public place," for purposes of this rule. So, if you're talking to someone who's standing at his open door, and having probable cause you say, "Step outside. You're under arrest," you could enter to take custody if he retreats.

9. Prevent substantial property damage. If you reasonably believe that a burglar, vandal, arsonist, or other criminal is within private premises committing or attempting to commit a property crime that may result in substantial loss or damage, you need not await a warrant to enter and prevent or minimize the loss. For example, "A burning building of course creates an exigency that justifies a warrantless entry by fire officials to fight the blaze." (Michigan v. Clifford)

10. Probation or parole search. Convicted criminals who are released under supervision, including probation and parole, are often subject to a condition that they and their property may be searched by peace officers or probation/parole officers without warrant or suspicion. The Supreme Court has approved warrantless entries and searches under these terms, saying the following: "The delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct and would reduce the deterrent effect that the possibility of expeditious searches would otherwise create." (Griffin v. Wisconsin)

Community Caretaking?

Some state courts and lower federal courts have spoken of a separate "community caretaking" justification for warrantless, non-consensual entry. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has only applied a "community caretaking" doctrine to the removal of vehicles and inventory of their contents (Cady v. Dombrowski, South Dakota v. Opperman, and Colorado v. Bertine), but not to police entry into homes.

Typical situations to which the lower courts have applied "community caretaking" include, for example, reports that a particular resident is unaccounted for (hasn't been at work or seen in the neighborhood, car is in the driveway and newspapers are piling up on the porch, indicating that something's amiss), or that a window is broken or a door is standing ajar during the residents' vacation or extended absence.

It may be that the reason the Supreme Court has not found it necessary to adopt the "community caretaking" doctrine for home entry is because the situations considered by the lower courts can usually be treated under the standard exceptions already in place. For example, the missing-resident scenario fits within the rescue doctrine, and the unsecure house suggests a possible burglary, invoking the exception for prevention of substantial property loss.

Unless and until the Supreme Court sees fit to review an issue of "community caretaking" entry, it's not unreasonable to rely on lower court decisions in your jurisdiction to support your warrantless, non-consensual entries that are justifiable under those local court rulings—always provided you take the prudent step of obtaining the advice of your local prosecutor and civil advisor.

Remember the Rule-of-Thumb

When exigencies (4 through 9, above) require immediate action, search warrants are unnecessary; however, if the situation is not immediately threatening, it's best for you, your department, and your local prosecutor that you get a warrant. Warrants increase your protection against civil liability (Messerschmidt v. Millender) and reduce the risks of suppression of evidence. (U.S. v. Ventresca) This is why your rule-of-thumb should be: seek a search warrant whenever practicable.

Devallis Rutledge is a former police officer and veteran prosecutor who currently serves as special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney. He is the author of 12 books, including "Investigative Constitutional Law."

Comments (17)

Displaying 1 - 17 of 17

Ima Leprechaun @ 2/11/2014 6:57 AM

The courts do take into consideration "Police Intent". If the intent is to subvert a legal entry by illegal means then any entry will be considered a violation of the 4th Amendment. Many Law Enforcement Officers will try to find a way around the 4th Amendment by fudging factual information and that is how case law comes about. If there is no probable cause to make an entry working around the law will get you into trouble every time. A search warrant is the best possible CYA you can use within the law. Should you have probable cause an arrest or search warrant is the best way to insure your case is solid and will not be subject to challenge at a later time

LongArmoftheLaw @ 2/20/2014 4:01 PM

Very excellent advice which, while not applicable specifically, is very applicable and holds mostly true in Canada as well. The specific caselaw and the constitutional protection may be different, but the principles are all pretty much the same. CYA and get a warrant! If you have a valid reason (we call it reasonable grounds up here) it really isn't that hard to get a warrant if you dot your i's and cross your t's when you go before the Justice.

Sherry @ 3/3/2014 2:19 AM

If you ( citizens) find officers wrongfully at your door, I have found it most effectively helpful to call dispatch and their supervisor as well as not answering the door.

Emcfusion @ 3/26/2014 3:55 AM

We must remember that sometimes we have to let things slide every now and again, this is what our founding fathers fought for and died for. To honor them and our freedom as individuals we must remember to uphold the law but not at all costs patience is a virtue we must seek better the world we live in. Please remember things are not always what they seem to you or have been meant to make believe by others if you believe you are defending someone or the community not your pride or personal vendetta then proceed but be careful with the power in hand it may very well destroy the wonderful dream of America for so many gave their life and never actually had a chance to ever live one minute of it. You guys have a tough ass job that I could never do myself and I respect you all for this as a law abiding citizen that may bend some rules from time to time I have never done anything to harm anyone nor do I intend to. Thank You! Sincerely

Kyd302 @ 6/6/2014 1:24 PM

As a person whom is on probation i understand the logic behind having to cooperate to search and seizure but here's my dilemma recently i was awoken to a police officer at the foot of my bed, I'm a very light sleeper so when he entered the house i would have awoken to him Announcing he's a Police Officer as he walked threw the house i woke up to my door being opened. Which is a warrant-less entry but it was nothing to do with probation and/or any dangerous crime. It was over a City ordinance violation. My probation papers say that i must openly give consent to a search or entry because not doing so would be a violation. I'm not the property owner as i live with my parent. so what would be the grounds for him to enter the household in this circumstance? The officer is lucky my mother wasent home at this time (7am) as he would have been greeted with a barrel pointed at him. I wanted to file a complaint but my lawyer said to wait till after the dispute is settled in court. Im in MN btw.

MiMi @ 1/23/2015 11:23 AM

In enforcement officers think they have a RIGHT to push their way into a 3rd party residence and tell the homeowner to *sit down and shut up or they would also arrest her* when she told the officers that they needed to get a search warrant. seems that there is a LACK OF TRAINING, COMMUNICATION and interpretation and understanding of what is U.S. Constitutional Rights here....and yet, all admitted this and they STILL THINK they did NO WRONG....something is really wrong here.

Claude Fields II @ 4/12/2015 6:52 PM

Citizen Education, Officer Training and Civilian Oversight.

Debbie @ 8/8/2015 4:52 PM

I live in a Private Secure Building, which has 3 seperate apartments....we all have doorbells....we have to let you in.....a neighbors friend, whom license plates were expired pulled into our lot and was let in by a resident....when they returned to the doorbell rings numerous daughter goes down to answer and an officer was looking for this guy....she told him, the guy must have been next door....the officer accused my daughter of lying....she refused to allow him in the building, she did offer to go get him and she did and he came out to talk with daughter returned to lock the downstairs door ...cop said to her "I am getting in that building"...he demanded she stay right where she was and allow him mentally challenge son went out the door and the officer immediately entered....went up to the apartment where the guy had been and wanted to search the neighbors house...of course she refused.....the cop got away with it..pathetic

Pastor Debra @ 3/20/2016 10:06 PM

Keep this

whataboutprotectnserveiss @ 9/9/2016 8:48 PM

I've had interactions with a couple decent, fair cops, which, if only they were more frequent, mine & most others' opinions of cops would be enhanced so so much. However, and add saltx1grain as this is anecdotal (thought unanimous, No one I've met not in FD/PD feel that law enforcement attracts some of the lowliest and most miserable and pathetic human beings that exist in our great country. Protecting, and serving and very, very, and almost or totally at the bottom of most officers' priority lists. Most find cops dishonest beyond belief, out to do their job in the easiest way possible, accepting and promoting of a racist status quo and generally just out to be shitty and "scary". No one is scared of you, it's the badge. You ruin lives, waste human potential, and are too afraid to challenge our racist for-profit, NON-rehabilitating, cruel, cyclical and impossible to escape by those unfortunate enough to enter. Hmm..what comes to mind? I dunno,..Stalin? The Nazi party? Slavery?0xmoral:(

Maria Terlep @ 10/11/2016 4:12 PM

My husband got arrested today for a violation of no contact. Here's the thing, nobody called the cops on us, they called the cops on someone else who was fighting down the street from where I live. The cops have been at my house before in the past, and they know that about the no-contact. So I am guessing they assumed it was me and came to my home. I refused to let them in but they entered anyways and found my husband. Keep in mind that nobody pointed my house out, they just said there's someone fighting in the street, It was not even us fighting. I was on my way to the store to get lunch when they stopped me. Is this a lawful entry or an unlawful entry?

Evelyn Jackson @ 10/22/2016 3:31 PM

Police officers entered my home without me knowing. I gave my sixteen year old a party. While I was in another room the police entered my house and told my daughter's guest they had to leave. Police officer told me we were disturbing the peace at 11:30 on a Friday night.

brody o @ 11/3/2016 6:09 PM

So my sister was in my garage and I was not home, someone pulled over a k9 unit and said there was drugs being sold out of the garage, Myself not being home, the person told the police to knock on the garage door and say ( Its Brody, I locked my keys in the house can you let me in? so my sister assumed it was me and opened the garage door to 3 police officers impersonating me knowing I was not at home at the moment, Is that not intrapment and or illegal searching sezure? I cant go say I am a police officer to enter a home knowing that a member of the household is not present? please help

Judge Dredd @ 11/16/2016 4:09 AM

If I have read this correctly, simply opening my front door without stepping outside places me "in a public place" and therefore subject to be detained or arrested at the officer's discretion ("you are under arrest step outside"). If that is the case I will not be opening my front door to a police officer under any circumstance ever. Might even install an extra deadbolt in case they decide that they have some other manufactured reason to enter my home.

OfficerBob @ 2/26/2017 7:08 PM

Parsing out the wording here, consider this scenario:
Misdemeanor arrest warrant issued for suspect at 123 Elm St.
Officer learns (and believes) suspect now lives at 456 Oak Drive
Officer goes to Oak Dr, has good reason to believe suspect is inside.
The two prong test 1- suspect's residence and 2- suspect inside is met (IMHO)
Can the officer make entry with the warrant, though the warrant was issued to the suspects previous or last known address?

OfficerBob @ 2/26/2017 7:09 PM

Parsing out the wording here, consider this scenario:
Misdemeanor arrest warrant issued for suspect at 123 Elm St.
Officer learns (and believes) suspect now lives at 456 Oak Drive
Officer goes to Oak Dr, has good reason to believe suspect is inside.
The two prong test 1- suspect's residence and 2- suspect inside is met (IMHO)
Can the officer make entry with the warrant, though the warrant was issued to the suspects previous or last known address?

Flarble @ 9/28/2017 4:03 PM

Ok...let's see if I can get everyone's questions answered...

Kyd302-- If your doors were unlocked, then yes, the officer may enter on the premise that the house is unsecured and potentially being burgled. ALWAYS lock your doors.

Maria Terlep-- the officers responded to a call and assumed it was you the call was about; if your door was closed and they entered the house, you've probably got a viable case for a claim of 4th Amendment violation.

brody o-- Police have only as much power as they are given; a complaint from a citizen allows them to conduct a preliminary, no-warrant investigation and, as officers are allowed to lie to whomever they like in the course of an investigation since your sister opened the garage door, the officers to were immediately empowered to conduct a plain-sight search.

OfficerBob-- No, the officer is authorized to search only 123 Elm St. To search 456 Oak St., the officer would require a separate warrant or witness to the subject's location.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

First Tactical: The Refined Tac Pant
"The V2 pant is performance-ready and purpose-built to handle any mission that arises...
Letting Go
Decide to live in the now, dealing with the things you can control.
Who Should Be the HAIX Hero of the Month?
Nominees for HAIX Hero of the Month have been chosen, and now, we want to hear more from...
Two Tools for Field Communications
Two models may help your field conversations, depending on who you're talking to....

Police Magazine