There is no difference between a “search” and a “seizure” under community caretaking function

Maryland holds that there is no constitutional difference between a search and a seizure under the community caretaking function. Here, the defendant’s freedom from personal interference was outweighed by the government’s interest in checking on his welfare. Wilson v. State, 176 Md. App. 7, 932 A.2d 739 (2007):

Although our appellate courts have not directly addressed the issue of whether the caretaking function extends beyond searches to seizures of persons as well, there is no basis, rooted in logic or policy, for drawing a distinction between searches and seizures for purposes of the community caretaking function. In fact, the same policy that underlies the community caretaking searches–protecting citizens from likely physical harm–justifies seizures of individuals for that same purpose. Although the United States Supreme Court has not applied the community caretaking function to seizures, lower federal courts have. See, e.g. United States v. Garner, 416 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that detaining an intoxicated man “slumped over” in a field was proper under the police’s community caretaking function); United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) (concluding that an officer’s initial detention of a motorist at an accident site to advise him of hazardous conditions and to ask him to stop honking his horn was proper pursuant to the community caretaking function); United States v. Rideau, 949 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1991), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 969 F.2d 1572 (5th Cir. 1992) (observing that officers’ “stop” of a man wearing dark clothing and standing and stumbling in a road at night was proper under the caretaking function; in fact, the officers “would have been derelict in their duties had they not stopped [him] to check on his condition”).fn2

2. The community caretaking function has also been recognized by federal courts in civil cases. See Winters v. Adams, 254 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that officers, accused of conducting unreasonable seizure and use of excessive force, acted lawfully pursuant to the community caretaking function in detaining a driver who was in an “agitated” and “extremely hyper” state and who appeared to be intoxicated, to ensure that “he would not be able to drive and hurt someone”); Samuelson v. City of New Ulm, 455 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding grant of summary judgment in favor of police officers, accused in part of unreasonable seizure for transporting a private citizen to the hospital where, under the community caretaking function, “a jury could not find the officers’ actions objectively unreasonable,” given that the citizen was incoherent and appeared to be hallucinating); Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (granting summary judgment in favor of police officers accused of unlawful detention for detaining a private citizen and transporting him to a hospital, as well as assisting in his involuntary catheterization because, under the community caretaking function, the officers’ conduct was reasonable since the citizen was walking along a roadway in rural Iowa in winter without a jacket, not carrying identification, and was incapable of carrying on a conversation with an officer).

United States v. Garner, 416 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005) is particularly instructive on this point as it is factually similar to the case at bar and provides a useful three-prong test for determining whether such detention falls within this function. In Garner, police were informed that a man was unconscious in a “half-sitting, half-slumped-over position” in a field near an apartment complex for several hours. Garner, 416 F.3d at 1211. [Lengthy discussion of Garner and comparision of this case omitted.]

New Mexico maintains a truck inspection station near the Mexican border, and defendant’s truck was stopped for inspection. After viewing the log book, the inspector had the back of the truck opened and the officer suspected that there was a false front in the truck. A drug dog was called and alerted. Under New Mexico law, there is no automobile exception, so the officer had to extend the stop to get a search warrant. That extension of the stop was reasonable. United States v. Michael, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67951 (D. N.M. June 22, 2007).*

In another regulatory stop case in New Mexico, the court held that the government failed in its burden of proving a justification for the stop because the officer’s testimony changed on the basis for the stop to the point the court could no longer find the officer credible. United States v. Landell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67950 (D. N.M. June 22, 2007).*