Defendant and his brother got beat up by multiple people, and the police were called to his house. His brother had already left, leaving a blood trail to his car. On the totality, the police entry into defendant’s house was not justified under the community caretaking function or any emergency exception. There was no reason to believe there was an injured person inside. State v. Matalonis, 2014 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1046 (December 23, 2014):
¶27 We have explained that “[w]hen officers enter a residence pursuant to the community caretaker exception, they may also undertake a protective sweep when they reasonably believe, under the totality of the circumstances, that such a search is necessary to assure the safety of the officers and others.” Maddix, 348 Wis. 2d 179, ¶15.
¶28 The State argues that the officers could reasonably have believed that a search of Matalonis’s residence was necessary to assure their safety in light of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Antony and Antony’s claim that he had been beat up by multiple people. We disagree.
¶29 When the search was conducted, the officers knew that Antony’s description of the fight was inconsistent and inaccurate. As indicated above, Antony inconsistently claimed that he was attacked by four groups of people and by four people. He also claimed that the fight occurred at a bar; however, the officers’ investigation led them to Matalonis’s residence. When the officers spoke with Matalonis, Matalonis informed the officers that he and Antony had gotten into a fight, that Antony had left, and that he lived alone. Although it is certainly possible that other individuals were involved in the fight and were in Matalonis’s residence, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that to be the case. Applying the objective standard, we conclude that the evidence before the officers did not provide an objectively reasonable basis for the officers to believe their safety was at risk.
¶30 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that there was not an objectively reasonable basis to believe that someone was in need of assistance inside Matalonis’s residence or that the officers’ safety was at risk and, therefore, the search did not constitute a lawful protective sweep.
3. Public Interest Versus Intrusion Upon Privacy
¶31 Even if we had determined that the police were exercising a bona fide community caretaker function when they searched Matalonis’s residence, the entry would not fall within the community caretaker exception because it fails under the third inquiry–“whether the public interest outweighs the intrusion upon the privacy of the individual such that the community caretaker function was reasonably exercised within the context of a home.” Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶29. To make this determination, we “balance the public interest or need that is furthered by the officers’ conduct against the degree and nature of the intrusion on the citizen’s constitutional interest.” Id., ¶41. We consider the following four factors in balancing these interests: “(1) the degree of the public interest and the exigency of the situation; (2) the attendant circumstances surrounding the [search], including time, location, the degree of overt authority and force displayed; (3) whether an automobile is involved; and (4) the availability, feasibility and effectiveness of alternatives to the type of intrusion actually accomplished.” Id., ¶42 (quoted source omitted).
¶32 Examining the first factor, the degree of the public’s interest and the exigency of the situation, this case is more similar to Maddix and Ultsch than it is to Pinkard or Gracia. The officers in this case responded to a medical call at a residence and followed a trail of blood from that residence to Matalonis’s home. There, officers were informed that Matalonis and his brother had gotten into a fight and that his brother had left. In Pinkard, the officers had information that the door was open and the occupants were apparently vulnerable, and in Gracia the officers observed significant damage to a vehicle and Gracia’s brother expressed concern for Gracia’s safety, the facts in this case do not point to the likelihood of hidden injury or danger. Here, however, as in Maddix and Ultsch, nobody expressed concern for the welfare of another individual. We acknowledge that the officers in this case observed blood in the foyer and near the stairwell in Matalonis’s residence when Matalonis opened the door to the officers. However, there was no objectively reasonable basis to believe that the blood belonged to anyone other than Matalonis’s brother, whose blood trail they had just followed to that location. Even if that initial observation had been sufficient to lead the officers to believe that the situation was exigent, the exigent nature of the situation diminished significantly once the officers were informed by Matalonis that he had been involved in a fight with his brother and that his brother had left. Additionally, as in Maddix, by the time the officers reached the locked door, which at best revealed only very minor streaks of blood on the door’s surface and on the doorknob, a reasonable officer would have suspected that Matalonis was the only person in the residence. The slightly blood-streaked door and doorknob do not support an objective suspicion that an injured person may be in the room with the locked door.
¶33 The second factor is the attendant circumstances. “These include the time, location, and the degree of overt force and authority displayed.” Ultsch, 331 Wis. 2d 242, ¶26. Although the officers did not control the time or location, the degree of authority and force displayed by the officers in this case was considerable. Officer Ruha conducted a warrantless search of Matalonis’s residence without Matalonis’s consent, which the supreme court has described as “more suspect” than other warrantless entries, Matalonis was detained in his living room with Officer Yandel, and Officer Ruha threatened to break down the locked door on the second floor if a key to the door was not provided. See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶20.
¶34 The third factor, whether the search took place in an automobile, does not apply in this case because the search took place in a residence. See Gracia, 345 Wis. 2d 488, ¶27 (“[t]he third factor is irrelevant because the search was not of an automobile”).
¶35 The fourth and final factor evaluates the alternatives that were available to the action taken. We conclude that this factor does not weigh strongly in either direction. The primary alternative available to the officers in this case was to ask Matalonis whether there was anyone injured (or uninjured) in his home. As we observed in Maddix, the officers “would not have been required to accept at face value” Matalonis’s answer to that question. Maddix, 348 Wis. 2d 179, ¶36. However, the officers could have questioned Matalonis further on the topic. “It is relevant to the overall question of reasonableness that the officers looked for people … without consent, apparently without first asking … whether anyone else might be there” and after Matalonis had told officers that he lived alone. Id.
¶36 Having reviewed each of the four factors, we conclude that in this case, the public’s interest in the intrusion was minimal and that it did not outweigh the substantial intrusion upon Matalonis’s privacy interest in his home.
