Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured.

At the front door, the officers determined that knocking would not be productive and made their way down the driveway alongside the house to investigate.

In ruling the officers' entry was supported by exigency, the Court cited Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), 393–394: [W]arrants are generally required to search a person’s home or his person unless 'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Mincey, supra, at 392; see also Georgia v. Randolph, 547The court found that "the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning."