Nebraska for the first time adopts the community caretaking function search. State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (2007):<\/p>\n
The State asks this court to apply the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment to Groves’ actions. This exception is rooted in Cady v. Dombrowski,<\/em> where the U.S. Supreme Court noted that<\/p>\n
“b]ecause of the extensive regulation of motor vehicles and traffic, and also because of the frequency with which a vehicle can become disabled or involved in an accident on public highways, the extent of police-citizen contact involving automobiles will be substantially greater than police-citizen contact in a home or office. Some such contacts will occur because the officer may believe the operator has violated a criminal statute, but many more will not be of that nature. Local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”<\/p>\n
Most jurisdictions which have considered the question of whether to adopt this exception have done so. In a few instances, courts have declined the invitation to adopt the exception based on the circumstances presented, generally concluding that on the facts before the court, the exception would not apply. This court has never had the occasion to apply this exception, though the Court of Appeals has done so. <\/p>\n
In accordance with these other jurisdictions and the Court of Appeals, we hereby adopt the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment. In so doing, we emphasize the narrow applicability of this exception. We agree with the other courts which have held that this exception should be narrowly and carefully applied in order to prevent its abuse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Trial court’s decision that permitted DNA collection from any defendant was overbroad, but it was permissible here because the defendant had already been convicted of a crime when it was taken, and that was certainly constitutional. State v. Mckinney, 273 Neb. 346, 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading