Emergency exception and Community Caretaking Flashcards
Owens vs Wy
Ref. 2015 AOT Legal Update; p.19
Gillette police officer responded to an emergency call where a man was unconscious on the floor in a motel room. Unk what he was suffering from, Officer went into males backpack after AMR arrived to look for information and found meth. Later the meth was used for a warrant, where apartment was subsequently searched. Court said it was ok.
Allgier v. WY, 2015 WY 137 (WY 2015)
Traffic stop for following too closely. The trooper encounters the defendant, Allgier, who is passenger, by approaching the vehicle from the passenger side. Trooper questions Allgier and the driver about travel plans. Allgier seems to not know the name of his girlfriend in Fort Collins but ultimately lit up a cigarettes and says that it is none of the trooper’s business. The trooper asked Allgier why had an “attitude all of a sudden” and why he had lit up a cigarette. Allgier replied that he was “getting irritated.” The trooper asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle and Allgier denied having any. The trooper testified that at this point, given Allgier’s contentious behavior, “red flags” were going up in his mind and that, based upon his training and experience, Allgier’s behavior was not characteristic of the “innocent motoring public.” The trooper asked Allgier to step out of the vehicle. Allgier refused, and the trooper reached inside the passenger side window, unlocked the passenger door, and opened it.
Allgier removed his jacket as he stepped out and threw it in the back seat of the vehicle. The trooper testified that this behavior “caused even more concern;” that once he was out of the car, it appeared as if Allgier “wanted a confrontation” and that “he was going to try to fight me or something of that sort.”
Once Allgier was out of the vehicle, the trooper, who was standing behind him, reached for Allgier’s arms from behind and began to pat him down. Allgier became rigid, began yelling and complaining of shoulder pain. the trooper found a Kershaw pocket knife in Allgier’s rear left pocket. The trooper testified that this caused him even more concern because Allgier had earlier indicated he had no weapons. At this point, Allgier appeared to suffer a seizure, fell to his knees, and then the ground, and began to shake. the trooper testified that he was unsure whether Allgier was having a seizure or faking it, so he handcuffed him before going to his patrol car and calling for an ambulance and back up.
The trooper returned to check on Allgier, informing him that he had called for an ambulance and repeatedly telling him to relax. The trooper also asked Allgier if he had any medication. Allgier responded that he did not. The trooper approached the vehicle and, while taking the jacket from the backseat, asked the driver “any meds in here?” He then looked in one of the pockets and saw a plastic purple prescription bottle, which appeared to have a label on it. The trooper recognized the bottle as the type that comes from medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado. He removed the bottle from the jacket pocket and saw that the label on it was indeed a medical marijuana label with Allgier’s name on it. The trooper then opened the bottle and found what he suspected to be marijuana inside.
Allgier was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Allgier moved to suppress the evidence found by the trooper during his search of the jacket and the vehicle.
The first issue involved the stop. The court reviewed the Hein case from the U.S. Supreme Court and overruled prior WY cases and held that reasonable suspicion is the standard for making a traffic stop. This is the same standard as for a detention for a crime other than a traffic stop.
The second issue involves the warrantless search of the jacket. The court appears to have some concerns about credibility because there were three justifications given at different points in time: (1) to look for medication; (2) to locate suspected contraband; and (3) to search for weapons. The district court had determined that the apparent seizure was an emergency and that the trooper was attempting to find medication to assist Allgier when he discovered the contraband.
The Wyoming Supreme Court took the opportunity to discuss the distinction between the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and the community caretaker exception.
The emergency assistance exception allows police to enter homes in the event of an emergency. Because of the “much greater expectation of privacy traditionally accorded the home, a higher standard [than with the community caretaker exception] must be met to permit use of evidence discovered by entry without a warrant.” Thus, under the emergency assistance exception, evidence found after a warrantless entry into a home or residence is admissible “only if the officer who enters has a reasonable belief that there exists an emergency requiring immediate action to assist citizens or to prevent harm to persons or property in the residence” and there is a reasonable nexus between the emergency and the area searched.
In contrast to the emergency assistance exception, the community caretaker exception applies generally to places and situations where there is a lower expectation of privacy than in a personal residence or home, such as a vehicle. Thus, the community caretaker exception “pertains to police encounters with citizens in public places and in their vehicles under circumstances giving rise to concerns about their welfare or safety, even though the circumstances do not present an emergency.” Campbell v. WY (welfare check case from Laramie in 2014 covered last year).
In Morris v. WY (1995), the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected the application of the community caretaker exception. There, deputies found the defendant sleeping in the backyard of a private home, woke him, and, because he was disoriented and unsteady, escorted him to the sheriff’s office in their patrol car so that he could contact someone for a ride. The defendant was alert and conscious enough to “ask questions, answer questions, and keep his faculties about him. In fact, [he] was functioning well enough to give the Deputy a phone number to call and the name of the person he was calling.” When the deputy got an answering machine, the defendant reached for his wallet to give him another number to call and realized that the wallet was missing. The deputy, recalling that the defendant had his wallet in the patrol car, offered to look for the wallet. As he left to retrieve the wallet, the defendant was sitting in a chair in the interview room, smoking a cigarette. The deputy found the wallet, opened it, and decided to search it for identification, revealing a folded piece of paper containing methamphetamine. The court held that under the totality of the circumstances there were no specific and articulable facts to justify the search pursuant to an officer’s community caretaker function and that the warrantless search of the defendant’s wallet was, therefore, unconstitutional.
In Allgier, the court upheld the search under the community caretaker exception, but not under the emergency doctrine.
What is the emergency assistance exception?
The emergency assistance exception allows police to enter homes in the event of an emergency. Because of the “much greater expectation of privacy traditionally accorded the home, a higher standard [than with the community caretaker exception] must be met to permit use of evidence discovered by entry without a warrant.” Thus, under the emergency assistance exception, evidence found after a warrantless entry into a home or residence is admissible “only if the officer who enters has a reasonable belief that there exists an emergency requiring immediate action to assist citizens or to prevent harm to persons or property in the residence” and there is a reasonable nexus between the emergency and the area searched.
What is the community caretaker exception?
In contrast to the emergency assistance exception, the community caretaker exception applies generally to places and situations where there is a lower expectation of privacy than in a personal residence or home, such as a vehicle. Thus, the community caretaker exception “pertains to police encounters with citizens in public places and in their vehicles under circumstances giving rise to concerns about their welfare or safety, even though the circumstances do not present an emergency.” Campbell v. WY (welfare check case from Laramie in 2014 covered last year).
McInerney v. King, 13-1490 Tenth Circuit (2015)
King is a part time officer with the Colorado School of Mines police. He investigated a report that McInerney had shoved her ex-husband’s girlfriend at the school. A municipal court summons is issued for McInerney and King goes to her residence to serve it. King had been provided with the address by the ex-husband, who also said that McInerney had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, had overdosed 3 years prior, had a firearm, and sometimes had visitation with an 11 year old daughter. (Much of this was not mentioned during municipal court proceedings on the ticket.)
At the residence, King noticed two open front windows, one of which had no screen. A third window had a piece of window trim hanging from it. The front screen door was open and had a broken shock arm, and the front door was open about six inches. There was no sign of forced entry. The garage door was also open and belongings were strewn about inside. No broken glass was visible anywhere. King wondered if everything was ok. Doing more than serving the summons was outside his authority, so he called for backup. He did not knock or attempt to call McInerney. A 25 year sheriff’s deputy arrived about 20 minutes later. He testified later that it was not unusual for people to leave their windows open in July on hot nights. King never indicated that there was any blood or any emergency. They knocked and announced and got no reply. The deputy pushed the door open slightly and saw a laptop computer, and indicated that they would do a welfare check to see why the door was open. They drew firearms and went inside. When they got to a bedroom, a door was closed. They knocked, announced and entered, finding McInerney in bed in shorts and a see through tank top. She said that she did not need help, was not a crime victim, and she was upset at the intrusion.
The municipal court charges ultimately were dropped. McInerney sued King and the deputy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deputy was dismissed from the suit. The sheriff’s office had conducted an internal affairs review and advised McInerney that the deputy had been disciplined for making an unlawful entry. King sought summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating:
In sum, if the nonspecific and dated information from Dr. McInerney plus a messy house and open doors and windows when the weather is warm could justify the entry that morning, it could have justified an entry on almost any occasion. . . . Taking all the circumstances into consideration and viewing the facts and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Ms. McInerney, we conclude a reasonable officer in Officer King’s position would not believe that entry was required to take care of an immediate need to protect inhabitants of the home.
McCoy v. Miller, 15-3223 (10th Cir. 5/16/16). Decided without oral argument. Not binding precedent but can be cited as persuasive authority.
McCoy v. Miller, 15-3223 (10th Cir. 5/16/16). Decided without oral argument. Not binding precedent but can be cited as persuasive authority.
In response to a 911 call, officers were dispatched to McCoy’s home. Upon arriving, they found the mother of McCoy’s girlfriend outside visibly shaken, very upset, and vocally concerned about what was happening inside the home. She told them McCoy was inside with his girlfriend and the couple’s infant daughter; that he had a history of physically abusing his girlfriend, whom she had seen him hit in the past; and that McCoy had also hit the mother in the past and threatened to kill her if she reported the abuse. She also reported hearing the couple arguing upstairs that night, including McCoy saying that he was not playing around with her anymore, someone being pushed, and McCoy possibly hitting his girlfriend.
One of the officers knocked on the door, identified herself as a police officer, and asked for the door to be opened so the officers could check on his girlfriend’s safety. His girlfriend indicated she was okay, but because the officers could not see her and believed McCoy was standing right beside her, they were concerned she was not able to communicate honestly with them. The officers continued to ask for the door to be opened so they could confirm she was safe. Speaking through the locked door, McCoy and his girlfriend told the officers they could not come in without a warrant and refused to open the door. McCoy and his girlfriend also denied the officers’ request for them to come outside. The officers then kicked in the door and entered the home with guns drawn. McCoy was handcuffed and taken to another room while two of the officers examined his girlfriend for injuries, finding none. The officers learned McCoy had an outstanding arrest warrant and arrested him. He was also arrested for obstruction of justice based on his refusal to let the officers enter the home or to come outside. McCoy argues that the forcible entry and resulting arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court disagreed, granting qualified immunity to the officers.
Although not every domestic call justifies a warrantless entry, the officers had information in addition to the call that indicated McCoy’s girlfriend’s safety could be at imminent risk. In particular, the mother demonstrated distress, described that she heard a threat against—and potential physical abuse of—his girlfriend that night, and made statements demonstrating McCoy had a reputation for violence. (The court noted that absence of a reputation for violence weighs against exigency). This information provided a reasonable basis for investigating further. Moreover, McCoy’s and his girlfriend’s refusal to allow the officers to either come inside or speak with his girlfriend outside the home did not allay their legitimate concerns. McCoy’s post hoc attempt to describe efforts the officers could have used—such as asking the couple to stand in front of a window—is unavailing. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to be concerned for McCoy’s girlfriend’s safety, which concern constituted exigent circumstances justifying a search.
