In the State of Washington, the community caretaking function exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement includes “not only the search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety.” State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 373, 386. The emergency aid exception applies when “(1) the officer subjectively believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety reasons; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was a need for assistance; and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched.” Id. at 386-7.
Under a routine check on safety, whether an encounter made for noncriminal, non-investigatory purposes is reasonable depends on a balancing of the individual’s interest in freedom from police interference against the public’s interest in having the police perform a community caretaking function. Id. at 387. When a person has not been seized, the balancing of the interests usually favors the police action. This means a police officer can approach a citizen and “permissively inquire as to whether they will answer questions.” Id.
In contrast, when a person has been seized by the police performing a community caretaking function, a court must cautiously apply the community caretaking exception because the citizen’s interest in being free from police intrusion is no longer minimal. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 388. Also, the exception must be cautiously applied because of a potential for police abuse of the exception. Once the exception does apply, police officers may conduct a noncriminal investigation so long as it is “necessary and strictly relevant to the performance of the community caretaking function”. Once the reasons for initiating the police encounter are dispelled, the noncriminal investigation must end. Id.
Was law enforcement’s initial contact with you under the guise of community caretaking? After the caretaking function was dispelled, did law enforcement continue to detain you? What was the basis for the continued detention? These are questions I would like to know the answer to. These are questions you will want to know the answers to, as well.
