Does the Fourth Amendment require police officers to have "probable cause" before entering a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid? Specifically, does the "objectively reasonable basis" standard established in *Brigham City v. Stuart* incorporate the probable-cause requirement typically used in criminal investigations? The Court must determine if this standard applies as written or requires additional legal "gloss."

• The "sanctity of the home" under the Fourth Amendment requires a higher standard than mere reasonableness.
• The *Brigham City v. Stuart* test should be understood as "sounding in probable cause," meaning officers must have probable cause to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened.
• Probable-cause principles should apply to assessing the risk and gravity of an emergency, regardless of whether the purpose is non-investigatory.
• The officers' entry was unreasonable because the primary risk was that the entry itself would induce a "suicide-by-cop" scenario.

• The "objectively reasonable basis" standard from *Brigham City v. Stuart* is the correct and sufficient test for emergency entries.
• Probable cause is a standard specifically designed for criminal investigations and is inapt for non-criminal, non-investigatory settings.
• The officers acted reasonably based on the totality of the circumstances, including the 9-1-1 call and visual evidence at the scene.
• The entry was lawful under the "community caretaker doctrine" because objective, specific, and articulable facts suggested the occupant was in peril.

• The Court held that the "objectively reasonable basis" standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss.
• Under the Fourth Amendment, searches inside a home without a warrant are "presumptively unreasonable," but the emergency-aid exception allows entry when officers have "an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury" (*Brigham City v. Stuart*).
• The Court rejected the "probable cause" standard because it is "peculiarly related to criminal investigations" (*Treasury Employees v. Von Raab*, *Colorado v. Bertine*) and would fit awkwardly in a non-criminal setting (*O'Connor v. Ortega*).
• The Court clarified that "community caretaking" is not an "open-ended license" to enter private homes and cannot alone justify a warrantless entry absent a need to render emergency assistance (*Caniglia v. Strom*).
• The reasonableness of an entry is evaluated by looking at the "totality of the circumstances" (*Barnes v. Felix*, *Ohio v. Robinette*).
• In this case, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to enter because of the ex-girlfriend's report of suicide threats, the "clicking" and "pop" sounds heard on the phone, Case's history of mental health issues, and the sight of an empty holster and notepad through the window.
• The Court concluded that the risk of "suicide-by-cop" did not override the reasonable belief that Case had already shot himself or was about to do so, as the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to "leave him to his fate."