By Brandon Lowrey | November 17, 2025, 2:04 p.m. EST
·
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected to hear a case exploring the limits of the “protective sweep doctrine,” which allows law enforcement officers to conduct limited, warrantless searches of homes they have lawfully entered.
The case arises of a warrantless search conducted by police at David McMaster's home after arresting him in a neighbor's yard because he was “excited, incoherent, naked and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance,” according to McMaster's petition for certiorari.
A detective entered McMaster's home, supposedly to conduct a “protective sweep” to look for other people who may have needed medical help. However, McMaster had told police that no one else was at his home and there was no evidence to the contrary, according to the petition.
During the search, an officer found “vegetation” that appeared to be a controlled substance, prompting officers to obtain a search warrant. They then recovered psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, among other items, leading to criminal charges against McMaster.
A trial court later suppressed evidence of the search of McMaster's home, saying the officers' entry and search of the home was illegal and invalid under the protective sweep or emergency relief doctrines. Pennsylvania appealed the ruling, and a Pennsylvania appeals court overturned the ruling, saying the detective's initial search of the house was lawful as a “minimally intrusive protective sweep,” according to the motion. After the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Having refused to hear his appeal, McMaster filed his petition with the nation's highest court.
In his petition for certiorari, McMaster argued that there was insufficient evidence to warrant even a protective sweep.
“It is apparent that there was no objective basis to conclude that another person was inside McMaster's home, much less someone in danger,” according to the motion filed in June.
Court's denial of certiorari in McMaster comes about a month after heard the pleadings In Case v. Montanaa case that tests the limits of the emergency relief doctrine — the standard governing when police can enter a person's home without a warrant to deal with a potential emergency. The court has not ruled in this case.
McMaster is represented by Heidi Freese, Barbara Zemlock and J. Andrew Salemme of Tucker Arensberg PC.
The government is represented by Robert Bain II of the Adams County Prosecutor's Office.
The case is David A. McMaster Jr. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, case number 24-1244in the Supreme Court of the United States.
–Edited by Rich Mills.
