No. 24-1244

David A. McMaster, Jr. v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2025-06-05
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: emergency-aid-exception fourth-amendment law-enforcement-search probable-cause protective-sweep-doctrine warrantless-entry
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-11-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

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?

Question Presented (from Petition)

The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless entry and searches of homes absent limited exceptions. The “protective sweep doctrine” is not one such excep tion, but instead permits a lim ited 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 insi de 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 impr oper 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?

Docket Entries

2025-11-17
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
2025-10-09
Brief of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in opposition submitted.
2025-10-09
Brief of respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in opposition filed.
2025-10-09
Brief of respondent Pennsylvania in opposition filed.
2025-09-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 10, 2025.
2025-08-29
Motion of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for an extension of time submitted.
2025-08-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 10, 2025 to October 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-08-11
Response Requested. (Due September 10, 2025)
2025-07-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-06-26
Waiver of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of right to respond submitted.
2025-06-26
Waiver of right of respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to respond filed.
2025-06-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Brian Ray SinnettAdams County district Attorney's Office, Respondent
Brian Ray SinnettAdams County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Robert A. Bain IIAdams County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Robert A. Bain IIAdams County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
David A. McMaster, Jr.
Heidi Rae FreeseTucker Arensberg, P.C., Petitioner
Heidi Rae FreeseTucker Arensberg, P.C., Petitioner