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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~