The Community Caretaking Doctrine: The Necessary Expansion of the New Fourth Amendment Exception

Suppose a police department receives multiple complaints of loud noise coming from a local residence. Upon investigation, police officers begin to hear music a block away from the reported residence. The police find several neighbors outside the residence complaining of the nuisance so they decide to knock on the door and see if they can control the nuisance. The police try knocking on all the doors and one officer discovers that the back door is open and enters the home, continuously announcing his presence. The officer continues to walk through the home in search of an occupant of the residence who could turn the music down or off. Upon reaching the basement, the officer discovers wall-to-wall marijuana plants as well as fans and running water. The police eventually find the defendant asleep in the room with the stereo playing the loud music. They arrest the resident for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.“Since the search was conducted without a warrant, the prosecution must prove one of the following to legitimize the search: (1) that there was an emergency and the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied, or (2) some exception to both the warrant and probable cause requirements applied.” The court’s interpretation and application of the exceptions to these requirements would determine whether the evidence obtained in this scenario would be admitted in trial.The Fourth Amendment provides the constitutional basis for all searches and seizures:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The above scenario had no exigent circumstances present in order to justify the police behavior violating the Fourth Amendment because there was neither “(1) a showing of probable cause that the area to be searched contained evidence that a crime has been or is being committed, [nor] (2) an actual exigency that required immediate police action, such as the risk to life and limb; a fleeing felon; or risk of the destruction of evidence.” The above scenario placed a sense of immediacy on the police to take action because of the neighborhood complaints, but the complaints were not sufficient to justify entry under the Fourth Amendment as an exigent circumstance.“The community caretaking exception is the most recent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. This exception allows police to enter an individual’s home without a warrant when they are concerned for the welfare of the occupants and the property within.” “It encompasses situations where police officers are ‘helping stranded motorists, returning lost children to anxious parents, [and] assisting and protecting citizens in need.’” The first Supreme Court case referring to the “community caretaking functions” of police is Cady v. Dombrowski. Cady defined community caretaking activities as those “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” In Cady, the Court found that searches conducted in the performance of community caretaking activities do not require warrants and should be subjected to “the general standard of ‘unreasonableness’ as a guide in determining” their constitutionality.” Cady’s holding began as a rule authorizing a routine, warrantless inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by the police. Courts have come to view these police functions as a doctrine, “the community caretaking doctrine (CCD), and several circuit courts of appeal have extended the CCD to include the search of private residences.” “In such cases, law enforcement officers perform ‘dual community caretaking functions of aiding persons in need of assistance and protecting property.’” “While exigent circumstances apply in the crime-fighting context, the CCD applies when ‘police are not engaged in crime-solving activities.’” This exception for a special category of police activity “is governed by a reasonableness standard: ‘Given the known facts, would a prudent and reasonable officer have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community caretaking functions?’” However, some criticize the extension of the CCD as “an inappropriate catchall exception for police to rely on after they enter an individual’s home without consent or a warrant, collect evidence in plain view, and are unable to justify their actions under one of the exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement.” In fact, several scholars favor limiting the community caretaking exception to only those situations involving automobiles, rejecting the extension of the doctrine to homes, while others support a restricted extension to homes. The Supreme Court has yet to answer whether a police officer may enter a home under the CCD.By looking at the circuit split and their relative application of the CCD, this comment will address that unanswered question. Based on a review of the case law and scholarship on the community caretaker exception, this Comment concludes that the constitutional difference between homes and automobiles suggests that a more developed approach is needed to determine whether law enforcement can justifiably enter the home under the CCD. Simply citing a community caretaking purpose should not legitimize a search in a criminal investigation. However, homes should not be excluded from the pursuit of legitimate community caretaking activities without careful consideration. Courts have, therefore, correctly recognized the need to help people in need of assistance and to protect property beyond automobiles. Part I of this Comment seeks to define “community caretaking” while exploring the CCD’s development. Part II makes the case that courts should extend the community caretaking doctrine to the home using a modified analytical test to determine the reasonableness of the search.Part III analyzes the circuit split regarding the extension of the CCD to the home in both federal appellate and state supreme court cases. This Comment contributes to the literature by suggesting that courts adopt a two-fold analytical test to help determine whether a community caretaking search of a home qualifies as reasonable. Furthermore, this Comment provides a basic foundation of what qualifies as an authentic community caretaking activity. Part IV offers a brief conclusion as to why the extension is necessary.