CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

“When Dean responded to the ‘open structure call’ he was performing a community caretaking function. Community caretaking functions are ‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.’ … Here, even if the officers suspected criminal activity such as a burglary, the police were not searching Jefferson’s property or home to find evidence of a crime committed by its residents. After all, one cannot burglarize, or criminally trespass on, his own home. Instead, the police were exercising a community caretaking function—checking to make sure Jefferson and the other residents of the home were safe. Because Dean was exercising a community caretaking function, it is not clearly established that Dean’s actions were an unreasonable search.” Bakutis v. Dean, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4373 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025).

The state courts ruled against petitioner on his Franks challenge, and he doesn’t show that it was an unreasonable application of law on habeas. Delapena v. Sec’y, Dep’t. of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31931 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search because it was valid as an inventory in any event. Abreau-Perez v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31976 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.