CERT. GRANTS

    Cert. grant today: Brigham City v. Stuart, 05-502 (docket sheet). Cert. from 519 Utah Adv. Rep. 17, 2005 UT 13, 122 P.3d 506 (Feb. 18, 2005). Officers responding to a loud party complaint saw one juvenile punch another while they looked in a window. While they had PC to believe that a crime occurred, the emergency doctrine did not justify the entry because there was no showing that the injury was so bad as to require assistance.

    Under the emergency aid, or medical emergency, doctrine, law enforcement officers may enter a dwelling without a warrant. The emergency aid doctrine strikes a balance between the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and the interests of government to access a dwelling to safeguard the well-being of citizens. The doctrine permits police to make "warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid ... [because] '[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.' " Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963)); see also State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 847 A.2d 561, 568 (2004) ("The emergency aid doctrine is derived from the commonsense understanding that exigent circumstances may require public safety officials, such as the police ... to enter a dwelling without a warrant for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."). The purpose and motivation for actions performed under the emergency aid doctrine distinguish them from conduct subject to constitutional oversight. Officers who render emergency aid are not serving as peacekeepers or in a law enforcement capacity, but rather as caretakers.
    Utah courts have adopted a three-prong test that renders a warrantless search lawful under the emergency aid doctrine when the following conditions are met: "(1) Police have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency exists and believe there is an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life. (2) The search is not primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There is some reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched." Comer, 2002 UT App 219 at ¶ 5 n. 1, 51 P.3d 55 (quoting Salt Lake City v. Davidson, 2000 UT App 12, ¶ 12, 994 P.2d 1283). Because officers who act under the emergency aid doctrine are not conducting a law enforcement mission, they may do so without either obtaining a warrant or demonstrating the presence of probable cause or exigent circumstances.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah, 236 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, UT 84114, (801) 366-0100; Counsel for Respondent: Michael Patrick Studebaker, 2550 Washington Blvd. Suite 331, Ogden, UT 84401, (801) 627-9100.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Back to blog