author: Justice Thomas Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy,

text:
    EBAY INC. et al. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C.
    No. 05-130.
    Argued March 29, 2006
    Decided May 15, 2006

      Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Richard D. Bernstein, Virginia A. Seitz, and Allan M. Soobert.

      Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Barnett, Acting Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Deputy Solicitor General Hungar, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, David Seidman, Mark R. Freeman, John M. Whealan, Cynthia C. Lynch, and Heather F. Auyang.

      Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Paul R. Q. Wolf son, Scott L. Robertson, Gregory N. Stillman, Jennifer A. Albert, David M. Young, and Brian M. Buroker.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Innovators’ Alliance by Theodore B. Olson and Matthew D. McGill; for the. Association of the Bar of the City of New York by James W. Dabney and Peter A. Sullivan; for the Business Software Alliance et al. by Kenneth S. Getter and Andrew J. Pincus; for the Computer & Communications Industry Association by Jonathan Band; for the Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. by Jason Schultz; for Nokia Corp. by Michael P. Kenny; for Research in Motion, Ltd., by Martin R. Glick, Sarah M. King, Herbert L. Fenster, Lawrence S. Ebner, Henry C. Bunsow, David W. Long, and Mark L. Whitaker; for the Securities Industry Association et al. by W. Hardy Callcott and Richard Whiting; for Time Warner Inc. et al. by Kathleen M. Sullivan, Daniel H. Bromberg, and Margret M. Caruso; for Yahoo! Inc. by Christopher J. Wright, Timothy J. Simeone, and Lisa G. McFall; and for Malla Pollack et al. by Ms. Pollack, pro se.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bar Association by Michael S. Greco, Robert F. Altherr, Jr., Nina L. Med-lock, and Joseph M. Potenza; for the Biotechnology Industry Organization by Nancy J. Linck and Brian P. Barrett; for the General Electric Co. et al. by John C. Englander, J. Anthony Downs, Kevin P. Martin, and William F. Sheehan; for Law Professors by Thomas G. Field, Jr., Craig S. Jepson, and Karl F. Jorda, all pro se; for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America by Harry J. Roper, Aaron A Barlow, Paul M. Smith, and Katherine A. Fallow; for Qualcomm Irie. et al. by Kenneth C. Bass III, Robert G. Sterne, Edward J. Kessler, and Linda E. Horner; for Rembrandt IP Management, LLC, by Lawrence S. Robbins and Roy T. Englert, Jr.; for Technology, Patents & Licensing, Inc., et al. by Keara A Bergin; for the United Inventors Association et al. by Robert M. Asher and Erik Paul Belt; for Various Law & Economics Professors by F. Scott Kieff and Richard A. Epstein, both pro se; for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation et al. by Gary M. Hoffman and Woody N. Peterson; for Martin Cooper et al. by Justin A. Nelson, Parker C. Folse III, Stephen D. Susman, Mark L. D. Wawro, and Max L. Tribble, Jr.; and for Steven M. Hoffberg by Robert J. Rando and Mr. Hoffberg, pro se.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Intellectual Property Law Association et al. by Joseph S. Cianfrani, Melvin C. Garner, and Martha B. Schneider; for the Association of American Universities et al. by Morgan Chu and Laura W. Brill; for International Business Machines Corp. by Christopher A. Hughes and Mark J. Abate; for the Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia by Blair E. Taylor and Susan M. Dadio; for Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., by James Galbraith and Elizabeth J. Holland; and for 52 Intellectual Property Professors by Mark A. Lemley, pro se.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies the four-factor test historically employed by courts of equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Petitioner eBay operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L. L. C., holds a number of patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U. S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange’s patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate.

Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange’s motion for permanent injunctive relief. 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (2005). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule. 546 U. S. 1029 (2005).

II

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 311-313 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See, e. g., Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S., at 320.

These familiar principles apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act. As this Court has long recognized, “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, at 542. Nothing in the Patent Act indicates that Congress intended such a departure. To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions “may” issue “in accordance with the principles of equity.” 35 U. S. C. § 283.

To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that “patents shall have the attributes of personal property,” §261, including “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” § 154(a)(1). According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property “[sjubject to the provisions of this title,” 35 U. S. C. §261, including, presumably, the provision that injunctive relief “may” issue only “in accordance with the principles of equity,” § 283.

This approach is consistent with our treatment of injunctions under the Copyright Act. Like a patent owner, a copyright holder possesses “the right to exclude others from using his property.” Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932); see also id., at 127-128 (“A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Like the Patent Act, the Copyright Act provides that courts “may” grant injunctive relief “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U. S. C. § 502(a). And as in our decision today, this Court has consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction automatically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U. S. 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 578, n. 10 (1994)); Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Assn., 209 U. S. 20, 23-24 (1908).

Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied these traditional equitable principles in deciding respondent’s motion for a permanent injunction. Although the District Court recited the traditional four-factor test, 275 F. Supp. 2d, at 711, it appeared to adopt certain expansive principles suggesting that injunctive relief could not issue in a broad swath of cases. Most notably, it concluded that a “plaintiff’s willingness to license its patents” and “its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents” would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue. Id., at 712. But traditional equitable principles do not permit such broad classifications. For example, some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so. To the extent that the District Court adopted such a categorical rule, then, its analysis cannot be squared with the principles of equity adopted by Congress. The court’s categorical rule is also in tension with Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405, 422-430 (1908), which rejected the contention that a eourt of equity has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to a patent holder who has unreasonably declined to use the patent.

In reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals departed in the opposite direction from the four-factor test. The court articulated a “general rule,” unique to patent disputes, “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.” 401 F. 3d, at 1338. The court further indicated that injunctions should be denied only in the “unusual” case, under “exceptional circumstances” and “‘in rare instances ... to protect the public interest.’” Id., at 1338-1339. Just as the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals erred in its categorical grant of such relief. Cf. Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865 (CA Fed. 1984) (recognizing the “considerable discretion” district courts have “in determining whether the facts of a situation require it to issue an injunction”).

Because we conclude that neither court below correctly applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, so that the District Court may apply that framework in the first instance. In doing so, we take no position on whether permanent injunctive relief should or should not issue in this particular case, or indeed in any number of other disputes arising under the Patent Act. We hold only that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Chief Justice Roberts,

with whom

Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring.

I agree with the Court’s holding that “the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards,” ante, at 394, and I join the opinion of the Court. That opinion rightly rests on the proposition that “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320 (1982); see ante, at 391.

From at least the early 19th century, courts have granted injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cases. This “long tradition of equity practice” is not surprising, given the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes— a difficulty that often implicates the first two factors of the traditional four-factor test. This historical practice, as the Court holds, does not entitle a patentee to a permanent injunction or justify a general rule that such injunctions should issue. The Federal Circuit itself so recognized in Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865-867 (1984). At the same time, there is a difference between exercising equitable discretion pursuant to the established four-factor test and writing on an entirely clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.).

Justice Kennedy,

with whom

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, concurring.

The Court is correct, in my view, to hold that courts should apply the well-established, four-factor test — without resort to categorical rules — in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief in patent cases. The Chief Justice is also correct that history may be instructive in applying this test. Ante, at 395 (concurring opinion). The traditional practice of issuing injunctions against patent infringers, however, does not seem to rest on “the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes.” Ibid. (Roberts, C. J., concurring). Both the terms of the Patent Act and the traditional view of injunctive relief accept that the existence of a right to exclude does not dictate the remedy for a violation of that right. Ante, at 391-392 (opinion of the Court). To the extent earlier cases establish a pattern of granting an injunction against patent infringers almost as a matter of course, this pattern simply illustrates the result of the four-factor test in the contexts then prevalent. The lesson of the historical practice, therefore, is most helpful and instructive when the circumstances of a case bear substantial parallels to litigation the courts have confronted before.

In cases now arising trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees. See FTC, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, ch. 3, pp. 38-39 (Oct. 2003), available at http://www.ftc.gov/ os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf (as visited May 11, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent. See ibid. When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest. In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

The equitable discretion over injunctions, granted by the Patent Act, is well suited to allow courts to adapt to the rapid technological and legal developments in the patent system. For these reasons it should be recognized that district courts must determine whether past practice fits the circumstances of the cases before them. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

      EBay and Half.eom continue to challenge the validity of Mere-Exchange’s patent in proceedings pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

       Section 283 provides that “[t]he several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Chief Justice Roberts Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH v. STUART et al.
    No. 05-502.
    Argued April 24, 2006
    Decided May 22, 2006

      Jeffrey S. Gray, Assistant Attorney General of Utah, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Kirk M. Torgensen, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and J. Frederic Voros, Jr.

      Deputy Attorney General McNulty argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and. Patricia A. Milleth

      Michael P. Studebaker argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Michigan et al. by Michael A. Cox, Attorney General of Michigan, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, by Kym L. Worthy and Timothy Baughman, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: John W. Suthers of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Phill Kline of Kansas, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike McGrath of Montana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, William Sorrell of Vermont, Rob McKenna of Washington, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming; for the Fraternal Order of Police by Larry H. James and Laura MacGregor Cómele; and for the National League of Cities et al. by Richard Ruda and Lawrence Rosenthal.

        Jonathan D. Hacker and Pamela Harris filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

        Wayne W. Schmidt, James P. Manak, Richard Weintraub, and Bernard J. Farber filed a brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. as amici curiae.

   Chief Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we consider whether police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. We conclude that they may.

I

This case arises out of a melee that occurred in a Brigham City, Utah, home in the early morning hours of July 23, 2000. At about 3 a.m., four police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at a residence. Upon arriving at the house, they heard shouting from inside, and proceeded down the driveway to investigate. There, they observed two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They entered the backyard, and saw — through a screen door and windows — an altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. According to the testimony of one of the officers, four adults were attempting, with some difficulty, to restrain a juvenile. The juvenile eventually “broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults in the face.” 2005 UT 13, ¶ 2, 122 P. 3d 506, 508. The officer testified that he observed the victim of the blow spitting blood into a nearby sink. App. 40. The other adults continued to try to restrain the juvenile, pressing him up against a refrigerator with such force that the refrigerator began moving across the floor. At this point, an officer opened the screen door and announced the officers’ presence. Amid the tumult, nobody noticed. The officer entered the kitchen and again cried out, and as the occupants slowly became aware that the police were on the scene, the altercation ceased.

The officers subsequently arrested respondents and charged them with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. In the trial court, respondents filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained after the officers entered the home, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The court granted the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.

Before the Supreme Court of Utah, Brigham City argued that although the officers lacked a warrant, their entry was nevertheless reasonable on either of two grounds. The court rejected both contentions and, over two dissenters, affirmed. First, the court held that the injury caused by the juvenile’s punch was insufficient to trigger the so-called “emergency aid doctrine” because it did not give rise to an “objectively reasonable belief that an unconscious, semiconscious, or missing person feared injured or dead [was] in the home.” 122 P. 3d, at 513 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the court suggested that the doctrine was inapplicable because the officers had not sought to assist the injured adult, but instead had acted “exclusively in their law enforcement capacity.” Ibid.

The court also held that the entry did not fall within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. This exception applies, the court explained, where police have probable cause and where “a reasonable person [would] believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons.” Id., at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, the court stated, the potential harm need not be as serious as that required to invoke the emergency aid exception. Although it found the case “a close and difficult call,” the court nevertheless concluded that the officers’ entry was not justified by exigent circumstances. Id., at 515.

We granted certiorari, 546 U. S. 1085 (2006), in light of differences among state courts and the Courts of Appeals concerning the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency situation. Compare In re Sealed Case 96-3167, 153 F. 3d 759, 766 (CADC 1998) (“[T]he standard for exigent circumstances is an objective one”), and People v. Hebert, 46 P. 3d 473, 480 (Colo. 2002) (en banc) (considering the circumstances as they “would have been objectively examined by a prudent and trained police officer”), with United States v. Cervantes, 219 F. 3d 882, 890 (CA9 2000) (“[U]nder the emergency doctrine, ‘[a] search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence’” (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N. Y. 2d 173, 177, 347 N. E. 2d 607, 609 (1976)), and State v. Mountford, 171 Vt. 487, 492, 769 A. 2d 639, 645 (2000) (Mitchell test “requires] courts to find that the primary subjective motivation behind such searches was to provide emergency aid”).

II

It is a “‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’ ” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 559 (2004) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980); some internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U. S. 11, 13 (1999) (per curiam); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967). We have held, for example, that law enforcement officers may make a warrantless entry onto private property to fight a fire and investigate its cause, Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509 (1978), to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion), or to engage in “ ‘hot pursuit’ ” of a fleeing suspect, United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42, 43 (1976). “[Wjarrants 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 v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393-394 (1978).

One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’” Id., at 392 (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F. 2d 205, 212 (CADC 1963) (Burger, J.)); see also Tyler, supra, at 509. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Mincey, supra, at 392; see also Georgia v. Randolph, ante, at 118 (“[I]t would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering ... to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur”).

Respondents do not take issue with these principles, but instead advance two reasons why the officers’ entry here was unreasonable. First, they argue that the officers were more interested in making arrests than quelling violence. They urge us to consider, in assessing the reasonableness of the entry, whether the officers were “indeed motivated primarily by a desire to save lives and property.” Brief for Respondents 3; see also Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 6 (entry to render emergency assistance justifies a search “only when the searching officer is acting outside his traditional law-enforcement capacity”). The Utah Supreme Court also considered the officers’ subjective motivations relevant. See 122 P. 3d, at 513 (search under the “emergency aid doctrine” may not be “primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Our cases have repeatedly rejected this approach. An action is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, “as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action.” Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978) (emphasis added). The officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant. See Bond v. United States, 529 U. S. 334, 338, n. 2 (2000) (“The parties properly agree that the subjective intent of the law enforcement officer is irrelevant in determining whether that officer’s actions violate the Fourth Amendment...; the issue is not his state of mind, but the objective effect of his actions”); Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996) (“[W]e have been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers”); Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 397 (1989) (“[0]ur prior cases make clear” that “the subjective motivations of the individual officers . . . ha[ve] no bearing on whether a particular seizure is ‘unreasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment”). It therefore does not matter here — even if their subjective motives could be so neatly unraveled — whether the officers entered the kitchen to arrest respondents and gather evidence against them or to assist the injured and prevent further violence.

As respondents note, we have held in the context of programmatic searches conducted without individualized suspicion — such as checkpoints to combat drunk driving or drug trafficking — that “an inquiry into programmatic purpose” is sometimes appropriate. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 46 (2000) (emphasis added); see also Florida v. Wells, 495 U. S. 1, 4 (1990) (an inventory search must be regulated by “standardized criteria” or “established routine” so as not to “be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence”). But this inquiry is directed at ensuring that the purpose behind the program is not “ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.” Edmond, 531 U. S., at 44. It has nothing to do with discerning what is in the mind of the individual officer conducting the search. Id., at 48.

Respondents further contend that their conduct was not serious enough to justify the officers’ intrusion into the home. They rely on Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740, 753 (1984), in which we held that “an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being made.” This contention, too, is misplaced. Welsh involved a warrantless entry by officers to arrest a suspect for driving while intoxicated. There, the “only potential emergency” confronting the officers was the' need to preserve evidence (i. e., the suspect’s blood-alcohol level) — an exigency that we held insufficient under the circumstances to justify entry into the suspect’s home. Ibid. Here, the officers were confronted with ongoing violence occurring within the home. Welsh did not address such a situation.

We think the officers’ entry here was plainly reasonable under the circumstances. The officers were responding, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to complaints about a loud party. As they approached the house, they could hear from within “an altercation occurring, some kind of a fight.” App. 29. “It was loud and it was tumultuous.” Id., at 33. The officers heard “thumping and crashing” and people yelling “stop, stop” and “get off me.” Id., at 28, 29. As the trial court found, “it was obvious that . . . knocking on the front door” would have been futile. Id., at 92. The noise seemed to be coming from the back of the house; after looking in the front window and seeing nothing, the officers proceeded around back to investigate further. They found two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. From there, they could see that a fracas was taking place inside the kitchen. A juvenile, fists clenched, was being held back by several adults. As the officers watch, he breaks free and strikes one of the adults in the face, sending the adult to the sink spitting blood.

In these circumstances, 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. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment required them to wait until another blow rendered someone “unconscious” or “semi-conscious” or worse before entering. The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided.

The manner of the officers’ entry was also reasonable. After witnessing the punch, one of the officers opened the screen door and “yelled in police.” Id., at 40. When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside. The officer’s announcement of his presence was at least equivalent to a knock on the screen door. Indeed, it was probably the only option that had even a chance of rising above the din. Under these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment’s knock-and-announce rule. Furthermore, once the announcement was made, the officers were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

This is an odd flyspeck of a case. The charges that have been pending against respondents for the past six years are minor offenses — intoxication, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and disorderly conduct — two of which could have been proved by evidence that was gathered by the responding officers before they entered the home. The maximum punishment for these crimes ranges between 90 days and 6 months in jail. And the Court’s unanimous opinion restating well-settled rules of federal law is so clearly persuasive that it is hard to imagine the outcome was ever in doubt.

Under these circumstances, the only difficult question is which of the following is the most peculiar: (1) that the Utah trial judge, the intermediate state appellate court, and the Utah Supreme Court all found a Fourth Amendment violation on these facts; (2) that the prosecution chose to pursue this matter all the way to the United States Supreme Court; or (3) that this Court voted to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

A possible explanation for the first is that the suppression ruling was correct as a matter of Utah law, and neither trial counsel nor the trial judge bothered to identify the Utah Constitution as an independent basis for the decision because they did not expect the prosecution to appeal. The most plausible explanation for the latter two decisions is that they were made so police officers in Utah may enter a home without a warrant when they see ongoing violence — we are, of course, reversing the Utah Supreme Court’s conclusion to the contrary. But that purpose, laudable though it may be, cannot be achieved in this case. Our holding today addresses only the limitations placed by the Federal Constitution on the search at issue; we have no authority to decide whether the police in this case violated the Utah Constitution.

The Utah Supreme Court, however, has made clear that the Utah Constitution provides greater protection to the privacy of the home than does the Fourth Amendment. See State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, ¶ 12, 996 P. 2d 546, 549. And it complained in this case of respondents’ failure to raise or adequately brief a state constitutional challenge, thus preventing the state courts from deciding the case on anything other than Fourth Amendment grounds. See 2005 UT 13, ¶ 12, 122 P. 3d 506, 510. “[S]urpris[ed]” by “[t]he reluctance of litigants to take up and develop a state constitutional analysis,” ibid., the court expressly invited future litigants to bring challenges under the Utah Constitution to enable it to fulfill its “responsibility as guardians of the individual liberty of our citizens” and “undertak[e] a principled exploration of the interplay between federal and state protections of individual rights,” id., at 511. The fact that this admonishment and request came from the Utah Supreme Court in this very case not only demonstrates that the prosecution selected the wrong case for establishing the rule it wants, but also indicates that the Utah Supreme Court would probably adopt the same rule as a matter of state constitutional law that we reject today under the Federal Constitution.

Whether or not that forecast is accurate, I can see no reason for this Court to cause the Utah courts to redecide the question as a matter of state law. Federal interests are not offended when a single State elects to provide greater protection for its citizens than the Federal Constitution requires. Indeed, I continue to believe “that a policy of judicial restraint — one that allows other decisional bodies to have the last word in legal interpretation until it is truly necessary for this Court to intervene — enables this Court to make its most effective contribution to our federal system of government.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1067 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Thus, while I join the Court’s opinion, I remain persuaded that my vote to deny the State’s petition for certiorari was correct.

      Indeed, it was the prosecution that prepared the trial court’s order granting respondents’ motion to suppress. See 2002 UT App. 317, ¶ 4, 57 P. 3d 1111, 1112.