Welfare check and warrantless entry into defendant’s home was justified by his being missing

Welfare check on defendant and entry into his house was justified because he hadn’t been heard from at work and he wasn’t answering his telephone. State v. Junk, 2008 Ohio 1564, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1335 (6th Dist. March 31, 2008):

[*P25] Appellant also argues that an emergency exception did not apply because the police officers entered the residence pursuant to a “welfare check” instead of in response to an emergency. According to police testimony, the officers initially drove to appellant’s residence to conduct a welfare check. The officers based the check on appellant’s unexplained absence from work, the collective inability of appellant’s supervisor and the police and sheriffs departments to reach appellant by phone, and a potentially serious work-related injury. Furthermore, when the officers arrived at the scene they observed an absence of tracks in the snow to or from the house, ill-fed cats, and, most notably, an ajar backdoor and a resulting accumulation of snow inside the house. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Mincey, “‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.'” 437 U.S. at 392-393, quoting Wayne v. U.S., 115 U.S. App. D.C. 234, 318 F.2d 205, 212.

[*P26] The officers entered the residence out of concern for appellant’s safety rather than for the purpose of investigating criminal activity. As such, the welfare check evolved into an emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment, and the officers were justified in entering the residence.

Ohio Supreme Court summarily affirms Mercier, with two justices dissenting. State v. Mercier, 2008 Ohio 1429, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1253, 885 N.E.2d 942 (2008), cert. denied 129 S. Ct. 2049, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1132 (U.S. 2009).

affirming State v. Mercier, 2007 Ohio 2017, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 1837 (1st Dist. April 27, 2007), posted here: “The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), 526 U.S. 295, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408.”*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.