Code of Criminal Procedure · U.S. Supreme Court, 2006

Brigham City v. Stuart

Brigham City v. Stuart is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury (emergency aid)
  • The officers' subjective motive is irrelevant; the test is objective reasonableness
  • Other recognized exigencies include hot pursuit of a fleeing felon and imminent destruction of evidence
  • Police-created-exigency limit comes from a later case, Kentucky v. King (2011)

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

Exigent circumstances permitting warrantless entry into a home generally include all of the following EXCEPT:

  1. Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
  2. Imminent destruction of evidence
  3. Risk of death or serious injury (emergency aid)
  4. Officer's general curiosity about a residence Correct
Why: Exigent circumstances are an exception to the warrant requirement and include hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence, emergency aid, and risk to officer/community safety. Mere curiosity is never sufficient.
Statute: Brigham City v. Stuart; Kentucky v. King; Mincey v. Arizona