Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart
Case Details
- Case No.: 05-502
- Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court
Documents
Question Presented
(1) Does the "emergency aid exception" to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), turn on an officer's subjective motivation for entering the home? (2) Was the gravity of the "emergency" or "exigency" sufficient to justify, under the Fourth Amendment, the officers' entry into the home?
Author(s)
Jonathan D. Hacker and Shannon M. Pazur, O’Melveny & Myers LLP.