The decision, which overturned a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court, was an example of something that the justices often declare to be unworthy of their time and attention, but that they engage in regularly nonetheless: the simple correction of a lower court's error.
"We think the officers' entry here was plainly reasonable under the circumstances," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion for the court after describing the facts of the case. These included sounds of "thumping and crashing" and cries of "stop, stop" and "get off me" filling the night air as four Brigham City police officers approached a home where neighbors had called to complain about a loud party.
Peering through a rear window, the officers saw one person spitting blood after being punched in the face by another. According to the Utah Supreme Court, the observed injury was not serious enough to justify entry without a warrant. But "the role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order," Chief Justice Roberts said, adding, "An officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided."
The adult occupants of the house were charged with offenses including intoxication and disorderly conduct, but a trial has not yet taken place. The state appealed after the Utah courts refused to permit use of the evidence the police had obtained after entering the house.
At least as interesting as the chief justice's opinion was a concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, who began by declaring, "This is an odd flyspeck of a case."
Justice Stevens said that because it was clear that the Utah Constitution, in the view of the State Supreme Court, gave more protection against entry without a warrant than did the federal Constitution, the state court would now probably decide such cases under the State Constitution. That would mean that as a practical matter, this decision would have accomplished nothing, at least in Utah.
"I remain persuaded," Justice Stevens said, that the court should not have agreed to hear the case. He added that his vote to deny the state's petition was correct.
The case was Brigham City v. Stuart, No. 05-502.
Other actions by the court on Monday included these:
Subway Murder Conviction
Without comment, the justices turned down an appeal from a ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals that overturned the murder conviction of Andrew Goldstein, whom a jury found guilty of pushing a woman to her death in front of a subway train in 1999. The appeal, New York v. Goldstein, No. 05-1193, was filed by Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney.
Mr. Goldstein's mental health was a major issue in his trial. The appeals court ruled that the prosecution's psychiatric expert should not have been permitted to testify about what other people who had encountered Mr. Goldstein had told her. These people did not appear at the trial and so were not available for cross-examination.
The appeals court based its December 2005 decision on a recent Supreme Court decision, Crawford v. Washington, that made clear that under the Sixth Amendment, the defense must be given the right to cross-examine the state's witnesses in nearly all cases.
Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Morgenthau, said Monday that Mr. Goldstein would face a new trial. It will be his third; his first trial, in 1999, ended in a hung jury. He was convicted at a second trial in 2000 and sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life; this conviction was later thrown out by the New York appeals court. [Page B1.]
Lethal Injection
The court turned down a challenge to Tennessee's method of lethal injection, filed by an inmate on the state's death row. The inmate, Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman, convicted of a 1986 murder, argued that one of three chemicals the state uses "has the clear potential to inflict great pain," although it is not needed to cause death.
The chemical, pancuronium bromide, paralyzes the muscles, giving the inmate a peaceful appearance, but can cause severe pain if not accompanied by adequate, sufficiently long-lasting anesthesia. Most states that carry out executions by lethal injection use the same chemical. At the same time, many, including Tennessee, forbid its use in veterinary practice for euthanizing animals.
The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the defense's argument that the state's lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Last month, the justices heard arguments in a lethal injection case from Florida, Hill v. McDonough, No. 05-8794. That case raised the procedural issue of whether a challenge to lethal injection could be brought by an inmate who had already exhausted all ordinary appeals.
The court's action on Monday in the Tennessee case, Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen, No. 05-1036, indicates that the justices see the Florida case as purely procedural, and that they are content to leave other issues concerning lethal injection to the states. Federal courts around the country have wrestled with similar cases, with inconsistent and confusing results. Some courts have granted stays, while others have permitted executions to proceed.
In Ohio this month, it took officials nearly 90 minutes to execute Joseph Clark, who at one point lifted his head off the gurney to say, "It's not working," and was later heard moaning as the execution continued.