emergency doctrine in South Dakota

1986Gravning v. Zellmer, 291 N.W.2d 751, 757 (S.D.1980); citing Hodges v. Snyder, 43 S.D. 166, 174-5 , 178 N.W. 575, 577 (1920); see also State ex rel.

1929In Hodges et al v. Snyder et al, 43 S. D. 166, 178 N. W. 575 , wherein the validity of an emergency clause in a law pertaining to consolidation of school districts was involved, this court said: “By the adoption of this amendment, the people reserved to themselves the right to pass upon the wisdom or expediency of any law enacted 'by the Legislature, unless such law falls within one of the two classes excepted by the amendment. * * * The exception found in section X of article 3, names two classes of laws tbat are not subject to the referendum: First, such laws as are declared by the act itsel

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain "emergency features" unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant's home, at the request of defendant's guests, to assist in removing guest's daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009SDCL 1-26-6 provides when a rule change is complete. [4] We also adopt and incorporate the rationale for declining to suppress from our companion decision in State v. Britton, 2009 SD 75 , 772 N.W.2d 899 . [5] "An indication is `a dog's trained behavior to signal its handler that a target odor is in the location being sniffed.'" Nguyen, 2007 SD 4, ¶ 22 , 726 N.W.2d at 878 (quoting Lockstedt, 2005 SD 47 , ¶ 9 n. 1, 695 N.W.2d at 721 n. 1).

1985Richards v. Whisman, 36 S.D. 260, 266-67 , 154 N.W. 707, 708-09 (1915), error dismissed, 241 U.S. 643 , 36 S.Ct. 449 , 60 L.Ed. 1218 (1916), this Court stated: Not having filed a proper referendum petition requiring a vote on said [bill], the plaintiffs are not in a position to complain of the invalidity of [the bill] on account of the emergency clause therein contained.

1985Richards v. Whisman, 36 S.D. 260, 266-67 , 154 N.W. 707, 708-09 (1915), error dismissed, 241 U.S. 643 , 36 S.Ct. 449 , 60 L.Ed. 1218 (1916), this Court stated: Not having filed a proper referendum petition requiring a vote on said [bill], the plaintiffs are not in a position to complain of the invalidity of [the bill] on account of the emergency clause therein contained.

2009Despite the mix of use, the cases cited recognize that the officers were acting as part of their community caretaking function, permitting the warrantless entry. [10] See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretaking function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community careta

2009See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretak-ing function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community caretaking); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 787 (recognized that in pursuing their community caretaking functions law enforcement can enter a home to render emergency assistance, b

2009Utah adopted a three-part test for the emergency aid doctrine. 4 New Hampshire similarly adopted a three-part test, which does not differ considerably from the test for the emergency doctrine, but is nevertheless a distinct test. 5 State v. Macelman, 149 N.H. 795 , 834 A.2d 322, 326 (2003) (quoting Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d at 609 ). [¶ 30.] The Colorado Supreme Court also adopted an independent test for the emergency aid doctrine, which requires a “ ‘colorable claim of an emergency threatening the life or safety of another.’ ” People v. Pate, 71 P.3d 1005, 1011 (Colo.2003) (cita

2009Utah adopted a three-part test for the emergency aid doctrine. 4 New Hampshire similarly adopted a three-part test, which does not differ considerably from the test for the emergency doctrine, but is nevertheless a distinct test. 5 State v. Macelman, 149 N.H. 795 , 834 A.2d 322, 326 (2003) (quoting Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d at 609 ). [¶ 30.] The Colorado Supreme Court also adopted an independent test for the emergency aid doctrine, which requires a “ ‘colorable claim of an emergency threatening the life or safety of another.’ ” People v. Pate, 71 P.3d 1005, 1011 (Colo.2003) (cita

2009See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretak-ing function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community caretaking); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 787 (recognized that in pursuing their community caretaking functions law enforcement can enter a home to render emergency assistance, b

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain “emergency features” unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant’s home, at the request of defendant’s guests, to assist in removing guest’s daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain "emergency features" unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant's home, at the request of defendant's guests, to assist in removing guest's daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain “emergency features” unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant’s home, at the request of defendant’s guests, to assist in removing guest’s daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009Therefore, some courts have modified the Mitchell test to require only an objective analysis. [3] See State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454, 460 (N.D.2008). [¶ 25.] Massachusetts applies its own test for the emergency doctrine.

2009Therefore, some courts have modified the Mitchell test to require only an objective analysis. 3 See State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454, 460 (N.D.2008). [¶25.] Massachusetts applies its own test for the emergency doctrine.

2009See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2008). [¶ 45.] Although we cannot definitively proclaim that the situation here matched the type of emergency in Cervantes —and for that reason the emergency doctrine and the emergency aid doctrine should not apply here—the odor of a noxious gas nonetheless merits further inquiry if police are to fulfill their roles as community caretakers.

2009See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2008). [¶ 45.] Although we cannot definitively proclaim that the situation here matched the type of emergency in Cervantes — and for that reason the emergency doctrine and the emergency aid doctrine should not apply here — the odor of a noxious gas nonetheless merits further inquiry if police are to fulfill their roles as community caretakers.

2009Despite the mix of use, the cases cited recognize that the officers were acting as part of their community caretaking function, permitting the warrantless entry. [10] See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretaking function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community careta

2009See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretak-ing function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community caretaking); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 787 (recognized that in pursuing their community caretaking functions law enforcement can enter a home to render emergency assistance, b

2009Texas adopted its test after examining two non-community caretaking doctrine cases from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. [¶ 38.] Although the above courts have adopted specific tests for this exception, there are courts applying the community caretaker exception but using a test applicable to the emergency doctrine or the emergency aid doctrine. [10] In particular, *238 the Washington Supreme Court declared that the community caretaker exception in an automobile search case arises when an "`encounter made for noncriminal, noninvestigatory purposes is reasonable[.]'" State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 37

2009Texas adopted its test after examining two non-community caretaking doctrine cases from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. [¶ 38.] Although the above courts have adopted specific tests for this exception, there are courts applying the community caretaker exception but using a test applicable to the emergency doctrine or the emergency aid doctrine. 10 In particular, the Washington Supreme Court declared that the community caretaker exception in an automobile search case arises when an “ ‘encounter made for noncriminal, nonin-vestigatory purposes is reasonable[.]’ ” State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 373 ,

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain "emergency features" unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant's home, at the request of defendant's guests, to assist in removing guest's daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009Despite the mix of use, the cases cited recognize that the officers were acting as part of their community caretaking function, permitting the warrantless entry. [10] See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretaking function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community careta

2009See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretak-ing function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community caretaking); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 787 (recognized that in pursuing their community caretaking functions law enforcement can enter a home to render emergency assistance, b

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain "emergency features" unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant's home, at the request of defendant's guests, to assist in removing guest's daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009See Stafford, 416 F.3d at 1073-74 (alternatively termed the community caretaking function or emergency exception, but application of the emergency doctrine test); Hoth, 718 A.2d at 34 (emergency doctrine, according to the court, is rooted in the community caretak-ing function of police); Blair, 62 P.3d at 665 (used test for emergency doctrine); Alexander, 721 A.2d at 283-84 (emergency aid used interchangeably with community caretaking); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 787 (recognized that in pursuing their community caretaking functions law enforcement can enter a home to render emergency assistance, b

2009See Nord, 586 F.2d at 1289 (stating the facts of the case had certain “emergency features” unlike those found in the case before this Court); York, 895 F.2d at 1029-30 (holding that no search had taken place when police entered defendant’s home, at the request of defendant’s guests, to assist in removing guest’s daughter and belongings from home because defendant was intoxicated, belligerent, and had threatened them); Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (holding under the specific facts presented that the community caretaker exception was applicable as a nuisance abatement measure); Ray, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 9

2009Relying on Mineey, a majority of courts have similarly adopted the emergency doctrine exception. 1 [¶ 24.] One of the most common tests applied for this exception by both state and federal courts was developed by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976). 2 The three-part Mitchell test requires: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent

2009Relying on Mineey, a majority of courts have similarly adopted the emergency doctrine exception. 1 [¶ 24.] One of the most common tests applied for this exception by both state and federal courts was developed by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976). 2 The three-part Mitchell test requires: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent