The Utah Attorney General's Office will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Utah courts should readmit evidence against three people police arrested after a fight in an apartment.
But some Utah police are concerned the high court, regardless of whether it overturns the Utah courts, could issue a strict set of standards for warrantless searches that would restrict their decision-making.
Courts previously have held police can enter without a warrant to lend "emergency aid" or when there are "exigent circumstances." Both terms are somewhat ambiguous, but generally the "aid" standard refers to someone needing immediate medical care. The "exigent" standard can include the destruction of evidence or a serious crime in progress.
In the Brigham City case, police responded to a report of a loud party about 3 a.m. on July 23, 2001. Officers peered through a screen door and two windows and saw four adults restraining one juvenile, according to court documents. The juvenile broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults in the face.
Two officers then opened the screen door and yelled to identify themselves. When no one heard them, they entered the kitchen and subsequently arrested the adults.
The adults were charged in 1st District Court with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. The defendants sought to suppress evidence taken from the police officers' warrantless entry. A district court judge ruled the police did not have enough cause to enter the apartment and threw out the evidence. The Utah Court of Appeals and the Utah Supreme Court upheld the judge's ruling.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff asked the U.S. Supreme Court in October to review the matter.
If the high court overturns the Utah courts, it would reinstate the evidence in the case. It would be up to local prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges again.
The Utah Supreme Court said the fight was not serious enough to reach the exigent standard and the aid standard did not apply because police didn't enter the apartment intending to provide medical care.
Brigham City police Chief Paul Tittensor said his officers felt there was an urgent need to prevent further physical violence in the apartment and were concerned about further injuries. The state courts' rulings, the chief said, have confused Utah police about what it takes to enter without a warrant.
"I think it needs to be a little cleaner, a little more clear," Tittensor said. "There are some ambiguities."
Michael Studebaker, an attorney representing the defendants in the Brigham City case, disagrees. He says there is a "common-sense standard" that wasn't met in his clients' case.
"They took it upon themselves to declare this misdemeanor offense, this juvenile breaking free and taking swing at people, to be an emergency," Studebaker said.
Ken Wallentine, a Utah lawyer and an author on public safety, said the state appellate rulings are tantamount to stating a person has a right to be a victim in his own home, and that could have serious implications for domestic violence incidents where it's not clear whether someone is a willing victim.
"The Utah Supreme Court seems to be playing by a very legalistic, technical set of rules that doesn't seem to be applying too well to rapidly developing situations," Wallentine said.
The U.S. Supreme Court could opt to issue police criteria to meet before they can enter a home without a warrant, and that worries Tittensor. He said circumstances vary from call to call and not every standard applies every time. Police need the discretion to make decisions at the scene, the chief said.
Bottom line, Tittensor said, "is we fear losing the power to protect the public."
No date has been set for oral arguments, but Gray said a Supreme Court clerk told him the nine justices probably would schedule the case for late April.
The case is called Brigham City v. Stuart, named for one of the people arrested in the incident.
ncarlisle@sltrib.com
