If the police do not have a warrant, and do not have probable cause that an emergency is occurring, can they enter your home? The police entered the home of William Case when they thought he might be committing suicide. Then, fearing he might have a weapon, they shot him in the stomach and charged him with assault of a police officer. They found a weapon near him.
The Montana Supreme Court said that so long as the police had “reasonable suspicion” that an emergency was occurring, the entry was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Case argues that the police needed probable cause to enter his home, which he contends was absent when they entered. The case pits traditional concerns against each other—worries about police intrusiveness against worries that police have the flexibility needed to confront the varied, often life-changing circumstances they encounter in their jobs. There is also a layer of how prescriptive the Court wants to be with respect to state courts and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
After argument, the model predicts that the Court will affirm the Montana Supreme Court’s decision (56 percent). Jackson and Sotomayor are the most likely reverse votes, so they might dissent. Thomas is a close call—there were hints during argument that he would side with Sotomayor. Barrett may be on the fence, too. In general, there were large shifts in predictions due to argument. But again these shifts should not be understood as the “effect” of argument on justices—it’s just the model detecting elements of the case that it didn’t quite see before.
Early and post-argument vote predictions
Note that bands reflect ninety percent calibrated uncertainty intervals.
