CA6: Opening car door without warning exceeded community caretaking function

The police community caretaking function has a long and important history that goes back nearly 800 years. But, seeing defendant parked in the snow with the engine running and apparently asleep, opening his car door to check on him was unreasonable. That led to an altercation. “Judged by these standards, Officer Zolnai unreasonably seized and searched Morgan when, without warning, he opened Morgan’s car door to check on him. Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to the officer, as we must in the context of a district court’s denial of a suppression motion, United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 892 (6th Cir. 2006), the officer’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Morgan, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16039 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023).

“In addition, evidence procured via a pole camera confirmed that Allison lived at the residence and went back and forth throughout the day between that residence and an apartment complex where he sold drugs. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, Allison’s contention that he was not actually living at the residence as a result of a domestic dispute, we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Allison maintained a premises for the purpose of drug distribution.” United States v. Allison, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16007 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).*

The district court credited the officers that they found the firearm when executing the warrant. United States v. Maultsby, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16019 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.