Brigham City police officers were called by neighbors to a home on July 23, 2001, because of a loud party and then entered without a warrant when they saw a juvenile punch an adult during a struggle. Three adults were charged with intoxication, disorderly conduct and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The nation's highest court took up the case on an appeal of decisions in Utah courts that tossed out any evidence of alcohol use, saying the quarrel between four adults and the juvenile - witnessed through a window by police - was not serious enough that officers were justified in entering the home and making arrests.

A Supreme Court decision, expected later this summer or fall, could have wide implications for police officers across the country if it clarifies when officers can enter a home without a warrant. Courts across the United States are deeply divided on what justifies "emergency aid" and how serious the situation must be before an officer is justified in entering a home.

Based on the officers' report that the party was loud enough that even though they yelled "police," the officers went unnoticed until the were in the house, Justice Antonian Scalia said he wasn't sure the noise level itself wouldn't be enough to enter the home.

"I think that's perfectly reasonable, besides the punch on the nose," Scalia said.

The Utah Attorney General's Office, backed by the U.S. Solicitor General and 16 states, argued police must protect and care for the community, especially when they can stop someone from being a victim.

"The Fourth Amendment [protection against unreasonable search and seizure] does not require police officers to stand by and be a spectator to escalating violence," Paul McNulty, deputy attorney general for the U.S. Justice Department, argued before the high court.

Defense attorney Michael Studebaker said that may be true, but that doesn't mean police should be able to enter a home without a warrant and then use evidence from inside the home to charge suspects. He said the police could have continued to watch through the window in case they felt more violence would occur.

Justices posed tough questions to both sides during the one-hour hearing.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked why the officers didn't seek a warrant via a telephone call to a judge, which is allowed under Utah law.

"There was no attempt to do that," Ginsburg said.

Assistant Utah Attorney General Jeffrey Gray said there was no time.

"It can turn deadly in seconds," he told the court. "[Telephone warrants are] not speedy enough."

Studebaker also argued that the short fight was over by the time the officers entered the home and there was no "emergency aid" to be rendered.

"It was over until someone throws the next punch," responded Justice David Souter.

Chief Justice John Roberts quizzed Studebaker on whether those charged weren't set up as a "test case" since the officers could have charged the adults inside with providing alcohol to minors based on two teenagers drinking in the back yard and juvenile alcohol use visible through the window.

"Why couldn't they have gotten that without entering the home," Roberts said.

"They could have," Studebaker said.

And although several justices said that it would seem that police could enter the home to stop the party even if they saw no violence, Studebaker said outside the court he doubted the court would take the standard of probable cause from imminent danger to loud noise.

He added that he feared police assuming something inside a home is violent when it's really benign.

"What if I'm wrestling with my son," he said.

None of the defendants originally charged in the case were at the hearing Monday.

tburr@sltrib.com