Is the Supreme Court about to legalize SWATting?

No, the Supreme Court isn’t about to legalize “swatting” (a cruel hoax that sends armed police to your door based on a lie). But they’re about to make these events more likely to occur.

They might even endanger YOUR Fourth Amendment rights in the process.

NOTE: You might see this amicus brief message TWICE. This message is also being shared with Zero Aggression Project subscribers.

You Helped Win a Landmark Case

For the most part, we’ve made steady progress at rebuilding the Fourth Amendment since the U.S. v. (Antoine) Jones case. There, we restored the property basis, the historical method of interpreting the Fourth Amendment. It had been replaced by a valid, yet weaker claim to have an “expectation of privacy” from 1968 until Jones in 2013.

Right after we filed our Jones brief, I was called by the author of another amicus brief, who kidded me that he appreciated how we indulged our fantasies. He shared our values, but didn’t believe arguing for overturning a 45-year-old doctrine was effective.

It turned out that, if you were with us back then, you supplied the winning argument!

We’ve won other Fourth Amendment decisions since then.

Now, we’re at risk of a backslide in the controversy of Case v. Montana – a Supreme Court case.

Probable Cause Replaced by Mere Suspicion?

The issue here is the standard for home invasion by law enforcement. Should it be the current “probable cause” or should there be a “community caretaker” standard based on an officer’s “suspicion.”

The case for the community caretaker standard is so compelling that the Montana Supreme Court fell for it.

What we need to do, right now, is make the Supreme Court understand the unintended consequences.

Case v. Montana involves a mentally ill man whose ex-girlfriend called police, reporting suicidal threats. They discussed non-invasive options for 40 minutes, then forced entry, despite acknowledging that doing so could provoke violence. An officer shot William Case during the search. Case was then charged with assault, and his motion to suppress the evidence from the unconstitutional search was denied.

The Montana Supreme Court sided with the state, invoking a broad “community caretaker” exception. They ruled that warrantless home invasions could be justified by an officer’s suspicion someone might need help – not probable cause, not a warrant. That turns the Fourth Amendment’s wall of protection into a screen door.

How the Court Could Accidentally Legalize Swatting

If the U.S. Supreme Court affirms this view, then all it takes is one anxious neighbor, one bad tip, or one weaponized false report to 911 to strip you of your Fourth Amendment protections inside your own home.

Good intentions sometimes lead to awful results. If results matter to you, if you respect our record, and you understand that your voice and our voice are needed here, we can file an amicus brief on the merits of this case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Doing so costs money. We need your help. To be successful, we usually need at least one $1,000 donor or two $500 donors, along with nearly two to three dozen more donors of various amounts. Please choose which role is right for you.

The average contribution is $55, but any amount you give will help. You can also start a monthly pledge, which enables us to say yes to future briefs.

I Support the Brief

Note: We’re requesting your support via Downsize DC Foundation’s “Zero Aggression Project.” By using the ZAP form, your donation can be tax-deductible.

One of the pleasures of my job is reporting back to you on the results of these briefs because I can often bring you good news. I would like to do that again with this case, if we can have your donation to fund the brief.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Set your own agenda,

Jim Babka, President
Agenda Setters by Downsize DC

Today’s Action: Contribute to fund an amicus brief in the case of Case v. Montana