The Community Caretaking Doctrine and a Warrantless Search of a Home

The Community Caretaking Doctrine and a Warrantless Search of a Home

BY RUTH LOFTHOUSE

The question of whether the community caretaking doctrine provides a basis for a warrantless search of a home was before the United States Supreme Court in Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021), and before the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aljohani, 2022 IL 127037. This article will address this new precedent as it pertains to a warrantless search of a home.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”1 Not all government searches are unreasonable however, and the courts have recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, such as “reasonable” searches pursuant to consent, to provide emergency aid, or when exigent circumstances exist.

THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE

An additional exception applies to the search of a vehicle under the “community caretaking doctrine,” first recognized by the United States Su-

1 U.S. Const. amend. IV. Illinois adopted this Amendment. See Ill. Const. art. I, § 6.

“This court interprets the search and seizure clause of the Illinois Constitution in

‘limited lockstep’ with its federal counterpart.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799, ¶ 15. preme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski.

2 The Supreme Court in Cady upheld a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle by a local officer after the vehicle had been towed due to an accident (the officer found a revolver in the car’s trunk). The Court reasoned that state and local police officers are often tasked with “community caretaking functions,” relating to the regulation of vehicles and traffic that are “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute,” such as the removal of a disabled vehicle from a public highway. In those instances, the search of a vehicle is reasonable and is standard and necessary police procedure out of concern for the safety of the general public who might be endangered if, for example, “an intruder removed a firearm or other

Ruth Lofthouse is an Assistant State’s Attorney assigned to the General Felony division. She has practiced criminal law for four years and prior to that she practiced family law for 12 years. 2 Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).

dangerous weapon from the vehicle.”3 Any “plain view” evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime recovered during that search would not be barred under the Fourth Amendment.4 Thus, Cady established the community caretaking doctrine, sometimes referred to as an inventory search.

CANIGLIA V. STROM

Fifty years later, the community caretaking doctrine was again before the United States Supreme Court in Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1601 (2021). This time however, the issue was whether the community caretaking doctrine applied to a search of a home in addition to the search of a vehicle. The United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Caniglia that it does not and refused to extend the doctrine.

In Caniglia, Edward Caniglia and his wife were in an argument when Caniglia retrieved a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and asked his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” The wife left for the night. The following morning, the wife asked the police to perform a welfare check after she could not reach her husband and was concerned for his safety. When they arrived, the police determined that Caniglia was a danger to himself and asked that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Caniglia voluntarily agreed to do so and left in an ambulance. After he was gone, the officers entered the home and seized Caniglia’s two guns without consent.

Caniglia argued that the officers unconstitutionally seized his guns. The district court disagreed and ruled that that the officers lawfully entered the home without a warrant under the community caretaking doctrine. The First Circuit affirmed and Caniglia appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court and held that the police officer’s seizure of Caniglia’s guns from his home violated his Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court rejected the First Circuit’s rationale that the officers were acting in their role as community caretakers, for which no warrant was required. The U.S. Supreme Court stated,

“True, Cady also involved a warrantless search for a firearm. But the location of that search was an impounded vehicle - not a home - a constitutional difference’ that the [Cady] opinion repeatedly stressed… this recognition that police officers perform many civic tasks in modern society was just that - a recognition that these tasks exist, and not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.”5

Once again, the Court emphasized the highest Fourth Amendment protection afforded to homes. The U.S. Supreme Court criticized the district court’s failure “to consider whether anyone had consented to the government’s actions; whether these actions were justified by ‘exigent circumstances,’ or whether any state law permitted this kind of mental-health intervention.”6 The opinion noted that the government did not argue exigency, and forfeited this point, but suggested that Caniglia’s suicidal ideations coupled with the presence of a firearm may have presented exigent circumstances under Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), wherein a warrant is not required by an officer to enter a home in situations where there was a “need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.”7 Justice Cavanaugh explained, “the exigent circumstances doctrine allows officers to enter a home without a warrant “to fight a fire and investigate its cause; to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence; to engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or prevent a suspect’s escape; to address a threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or the general public; to render emergency assis-

3 Id. at 441–442. 4 Id. at 442. The Justices also raised the question of whether the search would have been allowed under the numerous states’ red-flag laws and the constitutionality of those laws. In Illinois, we have such a red-flag law – The

Firearms Restraining Order Act, Section 430

ILCS 67/1 et seq. 5 Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1599-1600 (2021). 6 Id. at 1599. 7 Id. Note that Justice Sotomayor stated during oral argument that there were not exigent circumstances because Caniglia had left in the ambulance thereby removing the threat of any immediate harm to himself or others.

tance to an injured occupant; or to protect an occupant who is threatened with serious injury.”8

The Justices also raised the question of whether the search would have been allowed under the numerous states’ red-flag laws and the constitutionality of those laws. In Illinois, we have such a red-flag law – The Firearms Restraining Order Act, 430 ILCS 67/1, et. seq. The Act permits a family member or law enforcement officer to petition for the issuance of an emergency order and search warrant for the seizure of a respondent’s firearms based on an affidavit establishing “probable cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm[.]”9 The search warrant may “direct the law enforcement agency to search the respondent’s residence and other places where the court finds there is probable cause to believe he or she is likely to possess the firearms.”10 Thus, in Illinois, there is an avenue for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant for the seizure of firearms out of concern for the immediate safety of an individual and those in contact with the individual, even where there is no criminal investigatory purpose, exigency or need for emergency aid.

PEOPLE V. ALJOHANI

Our Illinois Supreme Court also had the community caretaking doctrine before it as it concerned a warrantless search of a home in People v. Aljohani, 2022 IL 127037. In that case, there was a 911 call of a violent fight in the defendant’s apartment. The police went to the residence and spoke to the defendant who stated that the victim was sleeping. The police left briefly to confirm the 911 report. When the police returned the defendant was not there. The defendant’s gate, garage door and door to the residence were open. The police entered the home

8 Id. In Illinois, the exigency exception is different from the emergency aid exception. The exigency exception requires probable cause and concerns the search for crime-related evidence (to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit of a fleeing felon) and is analyzed separately from the emergency aid exception (to fight a fire, to render emergency aid or protection). See People v. Lomax, 2012 IL App (1st) 103016 and

People v. Whimbley, 314 Ill. App. 3d 18 (1st Dist. 2002). 9 430 ILCS 67/35. 10 Id. without a warrant, searched the rooms and found the victim lying dead. The defendant was found and arrested. The defendant moved to suppress the warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court upheld the warrantless search under the community caretaking doctrine. The case came before the Illinois Supreme Court, which found that the community caretaking doctrine could not apply based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Caniglia, but nonetheless affirmed the search under the emergency aid exception.11 The Illinois Supreme Court delineated a two-part test in Illinois to determine whether the emergency aid exception applies:

“First, the police must have ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe there is an emergency at hand; and second, the police must have some reasonable basis,

‘approximating probable cause,’ associating the emergency with the area to be searched or entered. [Citation.] The reasonableness of the officers’ beliefs as to the existence of an emergency is determined by the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of entry. [Citation.] The

United States Supreme Court has held that emergency situations include instances when someone may be injured or threatened with injury.”12

Based on Caniglia and Aljohani, the community caretaking doctrine does not create a stand-alone doctrine to justify warrantless searches and seizures in the home. The Supreme Courts of the United States and Illinois stressed that searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different and emphasized the importance of a fact-drive analysis to determine which, if any, exception to the warrant requirement applies to a search. Further, neither opinion did anything to change the established emergency-aid warrant exception for injury or threats of injury, despite the Courts refusal to extend the community caretaking doctrine to a home. Lastly, the Supreme Courts reminded the legal community to be thorough and familiar with the warrant exceptions and the importance of their designations when presenting facts and argument as to any exception(s) that apply.

11 People v. Aljohani, 2022 IL 127037. 12 Id., citing People v. Lomax, 2012 IL App (1st) 103016.

The Chief Judge’s Page continued from page 4

dividuals can be “detained.” The Act accomplishes this by separating offenses into groups of “detainable” and “non-detainable” offenses. This will have an immediate impact on court operations.

Effective January 1, we will have a new First Appearance Courtroom, which will operate in T-020. Cases heard in this courtroom will have conditions of pretrial release determined where the offenses are non-detainable, or for those detainable offenses where the state has elected not to seek detention. Where the state seeks detention, and after the filing of a petition for detention, cases will be transferred to T-121 for a detention hearing. Matters will thereafter be sent to the assigned courtroom for all future proceedings. This is, and will continue to be, a work in progress. I will work to provide updates as necessary. I want to express my deep appreciation to all those who have worked so hard to make this transition as seamless as possible.

I wish you all a healthy and happy new year!

We are pleased to announce that James Bertucci has joined Kelleher + Holland, LLC, a full-service law firm headquartered in Lake County.

James leads K+H’s criminal law practice group, which complements our corporate + business law, civil litigation, estate planning, estate + trust administration, divorce + family law, elder law, tax, and residential and commercial real estate practice groups.

50+

TEAMMATES PROVIDING LEGAL SOLUTIONS

FOR INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES

10

10 CONCENTRATIONS MULTIPLE DIVERSE COVERING SERVICES STATES IN WHICH OUR ATTORNEYS ARE LICENSED + MEMBER OF MACKRELL INTERNATIONAL, A GLOBAL NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS 4 LOCATIONS IN ILLINOIS AND FLORIDA

GOAL1 = PROVIDE PEACE OF MIND