David A. McMaster, Jr. v. Pennsylvania

The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless entry and searches of homes absent limited exceptions. The “protective sweep doctrine” is not one such exception, but instead permits a limited search of rooms in a home where law enforcement are already lawfully present based on reasonable suspicion that another individual posing a danger might be present. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990). In contrast, the “emergency aid exception” authorizes warrantless entry “to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006). Petitioner was detained outside of his home, naked, and under the influence of a controlled substance. He advised police that he lived alone. Nevertheless, an officer entered and searched Petitioner’s home to conduct a “protective sweep” and/or determine whether there could be someone inside of the home suffering from a potential overdose or medical emergency. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a published decision, conflated these two doctrines and ruled the entry and search was a lawful limited protective sweep. The Question Presented is: Whether it is an improper expansion of the “emergency aid exception” and/or “protective sweep doctrine” to authorize a warrantless entry into a home without any objective evidence that anyone was in the home and needed aid, where an officer is concerned, based on his experiences involving individuals under the influence of controlled substances, that there could be a person in the home suffering from a potential overdose or medical emergency?