22 Police can’t search apartment after DV
911 call if no danger.
State v. Edmonds 211 NJ 117 (2012)
In responding to a 9-1-1 report of
possible domestic violence, once the police officers found that there was
inadequate evidence to corroborate the 9-1-1 report and determined that the
parties’ safety was not an issue, there was no objectively reasonable basis to search the
residence under either the community- caretaking or emergency-aid exceptions to the warrant
requirement and the evidence obtained through the warrantless search must be suppressed.
1. The Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey
Constitution guarantee the right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures, and state that no warrants shall issue
except upon probable cause. Under New Jersey case law, warrantless searches,
particularly of a home, are presumptively invalid and the State must establish
that such a search was justified by an exception to the warrant requirement,
such as the emergency-aid doctrine or the community-caretaking doctrine.
2. The
emergency-aid doctrine permits officials to enter a dwelling without a warrant
to protect or preserve life, or to prevent serious injury. The three-part test
for determining whether a warrantless search is justified by the emergency-aid
doctrine was set forth in State v. Frankel. The test inquired whether 1)
the official had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency
required him to provide immediate assistance to protect or preserve life or
prevent serious injury; 2) the official’s primary motivation for entry into the
home was to render assistance, not to find and seize evidence; and 3) there was
a reasonable nexus between the emergency and the area to be searched. Because
the United States Supreme Court has held that the subjective motivation of a
police officer is irrelevant and the appropriate question is whether, viewing
the circumstances objectively, the actions of the officer were justified, the
Court aligns New Jersey’s jurisprudence with federal law and eliminates the
second part of the test, leaving only the two objective inquiries. The Court
cautions that the emergency-aid doctrine, particularly when applied to the
entry of a home, must be limited to the reasons and objectives that prompted
the need for immediate action.
3. Here,
officers responded to a 9-1-1 report of possible domestic violence involving a
gun at Richardson’s home. Neither the 9-1-1 caller’s identity nor the
information he provided were corroborated, and the United States Supreme Court
has cautioned that there is no automatic firearm exception to the established
reliability analysis of an anonymous tip. Reviewing the facts of the case, the
Court finds that police had a duty to look behind the denials by Richardson
while her son remained potentially in jeopardy in the apartment, and it does
not question the officers’ decision to enter the home to assure the boy’s
safety. The Court assumes that the detention and frisk of Edmonds also were
proper. However, the Court finds that once there was no longer an objective
basis to believe that an emergency was at hand, the privacy interests of the
home were entitled to the highest degree of respect. At that point, the police
needed to obtain a search warrant to proceed any further. The State did not
overcome the presumption that the warrantless search of the residence was
unreasonable.
4. In determining whether the
community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement justified the search
of Richardson’s home, the Court acknowledges that police officers provide a
wide range of social services outside of their traditional law enforcement and
criminal investigatory roles, including protecting the vulnerable from harm and
preserving property. In performing these tasks, there is not time to acquire a
warrant when emergent circumstances arise and an immediate search is required
to preserve life or property. In Bogan, the Court found justified by the
community-caretaking exception an officer’s decision to enter an apartment in
which an alleged sexual assault of a minor had occurred for the purpose of
speaking on the telephone with the parent of a child who answered the door. However,
Bogan did not involve a search for evidence or a weapon in a home. Here,
the officers investigated and failed to corroborate the domestic violence
report, thereby fulfilling their community-caretaking function. If the officers
wished to search the apartment for a gun, they had to apply for a warrant
supported by probable cause. The findings of the trial court that the police
conducted a home search that exceeded the permissible boundaries of the
community-caretaking doctrine are supported by sufficient credible evidence in
the record.
