community caretaking doctrine in Tennessee

2026WILSON, JUDGE 4 We note that in its order granting summary judgment, the circuit court also made findings related to the State’s reliance on the community caretaking doctrine set forth in State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673 (Tenn. 2016), in Officer Perocchi’s approaching the vehicle in which Defendant was passed out and initiating contact with Defendant.

2026Under State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673 (Tenn. 2016), we conclude the community caretaking exception does not apply.

2016In McCormick our supreme court expressly overruled State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170, 190 (Tenn. 2013), which “confined the community caretaking doctrine to consensual police-citizen encounters[,]” holding, instead, that “the community caretaking doctrine „is analytically distinct from consensual encounters and [may be] invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable‟ under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.” 2016 WL 2742841, at *7-8 (quoting People v. Luedemann, 857 N.E.2d 187, 198-99 (Ill. 2006)) (alteration in original).

2016The McCormick court “emphasize[d] that the community caretaking doctrine „is not relevant to determining whether police conduct amounted to a seizure in the first place.‟” Id. at *8 (quoting Luedemann, 857 N.E.2d at 198-99 ).

2016Community Caretaking Doctrine The community caretaking doctrine originated in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).

2016Community Caretaking Doctrine The community caretaking doctrine originated in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016See United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) (considering "whether the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of [the defendant's] vehicle were justified by the community earetaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement”); Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3d Cir,2010) (describ- . ing the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to the-warrant'requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir,2007) (observing that the question is not "whether there was

2013See, e.g., Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir.2007) (observing that the question is not “whether there was a seizure” because, “under the community caretaking doctrine, police action can be constitutional notwithstanding the fact that it constitutes a seizure.”); United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir.2006) (“Generally, a law enforcement officer may only seize property pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause describing the place to be searched and the property to be seized.

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2015E.g., United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 205 (7th Cir. 1982); People v. Luedemann, 857 N.E.2d 187, 198-99 (2006); State v. Graham, 175 P.3d 885, 890 (2007); Ullom v. Miller, 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (2010).

2014E.g., United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 205 (7th Cir. 1982); People v. Luedemann, 857 N.E.2d 187, 198-99 (2006); State v. Graham, 175 P.3d 885, 890 (2007); Ullom v. Miller, 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (2010).

2016The court observed that “the holding in Moats is contrary to the overwhelming weight of authority in this country, which recognizes the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to federal and state constitutional warrant requirements” and that “the authority on which Moats relied to limit the community caretaking doctrine to consensual police-citizen encounters provides no support for the limitation.” Id., slip op. at 13 (citations omitted).

2016Although it cites to State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 2015) overruled by State v. Kenneth McCormick, No. M2013-02189-SC-R11- CD, __ S.W.3d __, 2016 WL 2742841, at *7 (Tenn. May 10, 2016), the certified question does not raise the issue of whether the stop was justified under the community caretaking doctrine.

2016The Moats majority grounded this limitation in the Tennessee Constitution, id. at 187 n. 8,; even though the defendant had neither relied upon the state constitution nor argued that it provided greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, and *684 even though this Court had “long held” that article I, section 7 “is identical in intent and purpose to the Fourth Amendment,” State v. Williams, 185 S.W.3d 311, 315 (Tenn.2006) (citing State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn.2000); Sneed v. State, 221 Tenn. 6 , 423 S.W.2d 857, 860 (1968)); see also State v. Donaldson, 380 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tenn.201

2016As noted by the dissenting justices in Moats , the limitation originated with State v. Hawkins, 969 S.W,2d 936 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997), was adopted by this Court without independent analysis in Williams, 185 S.W.3d at 315 , and was subsequently repeated as dicta in a footnote in Day, 263 S.W.3d at 901 n. 10.

2018We emphasize that when the community caretaking exception is invoked to validate a search or seizure, courts must meticulously consider the facts and carefully apply the exception in a manner that mitigates the risk of abuse. [State v. Smathers, 753 S.E.2d 380, 386 (N.C.

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016See United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) (considering "whether the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of [the defendant's] vehicle were justified by the community earetaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement”); Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3d Cir,2010) (describ- . ing the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to the-warrant'requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir,2007) (observing that the question is not "whether there was

2013There are, however, exceptions to this requirement, including the community care-taking exception.” (internal footnote and citations omitted)); Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3rd Cir.2010) (describing the community caretak-ing doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 144-45 (4th Cir.2005) (applying the “community caretaking exception” to uphold a warrantless search of a vehicle’s glove compartment); United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.201

2016See United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) (considering "whether the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of [the defendant's] vehicle were justified by the community earetaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement”); Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3d Cir,2010) (describ- . ing the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to the-warrant'requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir,2007) (observing that the question is not "whether there was

2013See, e.g., Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir.2007) (observing that the question is not “whether there was a seizure” because, “under the community caretaking doctrine, police action can be constitutional notwithstanding the fact that it constitutes a seizure.”); United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir.2006) (“Generally, a law enforcement officer may only seize property pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause describing the place to be searched and the property to be seized.

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016See United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) (considering "whether the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of [the defendant's] vehicle were justified by the community earetaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement”); Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3d Cir,2010) (describ- . ing the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to the-warrant'requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir,2007) (observing that the question is not "whether there was

2013There are, however, exceptions to this requirement, including the community care-taking exception.” (internal footnote and citations omitted)); Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3rd Cir.2010) (describing the community caretak-ing doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 144-45 (4th Cir.2005) (applying the “community caretaking exception” to uphold a warrantless search of a vehicle’s glove compartment); United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.201

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016See United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) (considering "whether the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of [the defendant's] vehicle were justified by the community earetaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement”); Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3d Cir,2010) (describ- . ing the community caretaking doctrine as an exception to the-warrant'requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir,2007) (observing that the question is not "whether there was

2013There are, however, exceptions to this requirement, including the community care-taking exception.” (internal footnote and citations omitted)); Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 174-77 (3rd Cir.2010) (describing the community caretak-ing doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement but refusing to apply it to justify warrantless searches of homes); United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 144-45 (4th Cir.2005) (applying the “community caretaking exception” to uphold a warrantless search of a vehicle’s glove compartment); United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.201

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229 , 162 P.3d 835, 839 (2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an "exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (recognizing the community caretaldng exception); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415 , 975 A.2d 877, 891 (2009) (recognizing that the community caretaking doctrine functions as an exception and enunciating a test for its application); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 86 Mass.App.Ct. 48 , 13 N.E.3d 629 , 632-34 (2014) (discussi

2016The court stated, however, that “[r]egret[ably], . . . our consideration of the stop under the community caretaking exception might well yield a different outcome.” Day, 263 S.W.3d at 900 .

2016Day, 263 S.W.3d at 899 (“[T]he trial court acknowledged that it was a close question, but ultimately concluded that „public safety‟ concerns rendered the stop valid.”).

2016As noted by the dissenting justices in Moats , the limitation originated with State v. Hawkins, 969 S.W,2d 936 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997), was adopted by this Court without independent analysis in Williams, 185 S.W.3d at 315 , and was subsequently repeated as dicta in a footnote in Day, 263 S.W.3d at 901 n. 10.

2013This limitation originated with State v. Hawkins, 969 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997), was adopted by this Court in Williams, 185 S.W.3d at 315 , and was subsequently repeated as dicta in a footnote in Day, 263 S.W.3d at 901 n. 10.