community caretaking exception in Michigan

2020“For the community-caretaking exception to apply, the actions of the police must be totally unrelated to the duties of the police to investigate crimes.” People v Hill, 299 Mich App 402, 406 ; 829 NW2d 908 (2013), citing Slaughter, 489 Mich at 314 .

2018However, when police are performing ‘caretaking’ functions, they are usually not searching for anything.” See also People v Slaughter, 489 Mich 302, 316-317 ; 803 NW2d 171 (2011) (holding that that the community caretaking exception applies when a firefighter, responding to an emergency call involving a threat to life or property, reasonably enters a private residence in order to abate what is reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of fire inside).

2018Hence, the community caretaking exception is not applicable to the warrantless arrest in this case. -4- circumstances, a police officer is not authorized to enter a private home to make an arrest without a warrant.” The “exigent circumstances” exception, was characterized by our Supreme Court in In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 271 ; 505 NW2d 201 (1993), as follows: Pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception, we hold that the police may enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officers possess probable cause to believe that a crime was recently committed on the premises, and p

2018Hence, the community caretaking exception is not applicable to the warrantless arrest in this case. -4- circumstances, a police officer is not authorized to enter a private home to make an arrest without a warrant.” The “exigent circumstances” exception, was characterized by our Supreme Court in In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 271 ; 505 NW2d 201 (1993), as follows: Pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception, we hold that the police may enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officers possess probable cause to believe that a crime was recently committed on the premises, and p

2011“When the police act pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception, they are searching for evidence or perpetrators of a crime.” Davis, 442 Mich at 24 . 21 See Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973). 7 was warrantless, we must determine whether the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement applies.

2011“When the police act pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception, they are searching for evidence or perpetrators of a crime.” Davis, 442 Mich at 24 . 21 See Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973). 7 was warrantless, we must determine whether the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement applies.

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2023Whether it be pursuant to the emergency-aid exception or the community-caretaking exception, “ ‘the entry must be limited to the justification therefor, and the officer may not do more than is reasonably necessary to determine whether a person is in need of assistance, and to provide that assistance.’ ” Lemons, 299 Mich App at 545 , quoting People v Davis, 442 Mich 1, 26 ; 497 NW2d 910 (1993).

2018The short answer, set forth by this Court in People v Rice, 192 Mich App 240, 245 ; 481 NW2d 10 (1991) in a rather conclusory manner, is that “absent exigent 4 Defendant’s assertions that the community caretaking exception does not apply to this case are correct.

2018The short answer, set forth by this Court in People v Rice, 192 Mich App 240, 245 ; 481 NW2d 10 (1991) in a rather conclusory manner, is that “absent exigent 4 Defendant’s assertions that the community caretaking exception does not apply to this case are correct.

2018Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant. [Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 589-590 ; 100 S Ct 1371 ; 63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980) (citation omitted; alterations in Payton).] While we note that there are a number of exceptions under which warrantless searches are considered reasonable and, therefore, constitutional, e.g., People v Hill, 299 Mich App 402, 405-406 ; 829 NW2d 908 (2013), and among them is the community caretaking exception, the issue before us does not concern a warrantless search, but rather a warrantless arrest.4 It was undisputed that

2018Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant. [Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 589-590 ; 100 S Ct 1371 ; 63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980) (citation omitted; alterations in Payton).] While we note that there are a number of exceptions under which warrantless searches are considered reasonable and, therefore, constitutional, e.g., People v Hill, 299 Mich App 402, 405-406 ; 829 NW2d 908 (2013), and among them is the community caretaking exception, the issue before us does not concern a warrantless search, but rather a warrantless arrest.4 It was undisputed that

2018“This Court’s review of a lower court’s factual findings in a suppression hearing is limited to clear error, and those findings will be affirmed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322, 325 ; 894 NW2d 86 (2016), quoting People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2018“This Court’s review of a lower court’s factual findings in a suppression hearing is limited to clear error, and those findings will be affirmed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322, 325 ; 894 NW2d 86 (2016), quoting People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2018However, having concluded that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement inapplicable to this case, we nonetheless affirm the trial court because it is well-settled that “[t]his Court will affirm a lower court’s ruling when the court reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.” People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613 ; 577 NW2d 124 (1998). -6- with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011).

2018However, having concluded that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement inapplicable to this case, we nonetheless affirm the trial court because it is well-settled that “[t]his Court will affirm a lower court’s ruling when the court reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.” People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613 ; 577 NW2d 124 (1998). -6- with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011).

2018However, having concluded that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement inapplicable to this case, we nonetheless affirm the trial court because it is well-settled that “[t]his Court will affirm a lower court’s ruling when the court reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.” People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613 ; 577 NW2d 124 (1998). -6- with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011).

2018However, having concluded that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement inapplicable to this case, we nonetheless affirm the trial court because it is well-settled that “[t]his Court will affirm a lower court’s ruling when the court reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.” People v Lyon, 227 Mich App 599, 612-613 ; 577 NW2d 124 (1998). -6- with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289 ; 806 NW2d 676 (2011).

2018“This Court’s review of a lower court’s factual findings in a suppression hearing is limited to clear error, and those findings will be affirmed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322, 325 ; 894 NW2d 86 (2016), quoting People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2018“This Court’s review of a lower court’s factual findings in a suppression hearing is limited to clear error, and those findings will be affirmed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322, 325 ; 894 NW2d 86 (2016), quoting People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002).

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2025Galloway, 259 Mich App at 638 .15 13 All that is known is that his blood was dripping to the ground, and puddling, and that medics were called at some point. 14 It is not clear exactly when Williams was arrested, but there is no testimony about him going inside his house once the police entered his backyard. 15 We note that the community caretaking exception does not apply here because it was not raised by the prosecution and the teenager was already outside when his injury was discovered.

2023But “[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, life-threatening’ injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” Michigan v Fisher, 558 US 45, 49 ; 130 S Ct 546 ; 175 L Ed 2d 410 (2000).

2023But “[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, life-threatening’ injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” Michigan v Fisher, 558 US 45, 49 ; 130 S Ct 546 ; 175 L Ed 2d 410 (2000).

2013We agree with the general sentiments expressed in the lead opinion in People v Ray, 21 Cal 4th 464, 472; 88 Cal Rptr 2d 1; 981 P2d 928 (1999), that, in connection with the community-caretaking exception, “[l]ocal police ‘should and do regularly respond to requests of friends and relatives and others for assistance when people are concerned about the health, safety or welfare of their friend, loved ones and others.’ ” (Citation omitted.)

2011Many courts have observed that the Cady decision included language that sharply distinguished automobile searches from searches of private residences.43 Therefore, they 41 Toohey, 438 Mich at 275-276 . 42 Krezen, 427 Mich 681 ; Toohey, 438 Mich 265 ; Ohlinger, 438 Mich 477 ; Davis, 442 Mich 1 . 43 See, e.g., United States v Erickson, 991 F2d 529, 532 (CA 9, 1993) (“Although it involved a community caretaking function, Cady clearly turned on the ‘constitutional difference’ between searching a house and searching an automobile.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 14 have limited the commu

2011Like decisions applying the community caretaking exception to police officers’ actions, Tyler distinguished a firefighter’s community caretaking functions from his investigative functions.37 As a general rule, “official entries to investigate the cause of a 35 Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 449 , 504; 98 S Ct 1942 ; 56 L Ed 2d 486 (1978). 36 Id. at 506 ; see also Camara, 387 US at 530 (“It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.”). 37 Similarly, Michigan statutory l

2011Tyler, 436 US 499 ; Mincey, 437 US 385 ; see also Ray, 626 F3d at 176 (stating that Quezada and similar cases “do not simply rely on the community caretaking doctrine established in Cady”).

2011However, the majority explained that “the record permits the conclusion that the firefighters were simply too quick to enter into defendant’s unit and failed to investigate the complaint” before entering defendant’s residence.8 Thus, the majority concluded that “there are too 4 People v Tyler, 399 Mich 564 ; 250 NW2d 467 (1977), aff’d sub nom Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 (1978). 5 Camara v Muni Court of City & Co of San Francisco, 387 US 523 ; 87 S Ct 1727 ; 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967). 6 People v Davis, 442 Mich 1 ; 497 NW2d 910 (1993). 7 People v Slaughter, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Co

2011However, the majority explained that “the record permits the conclusion that the firefighters were simply too quick to enter into defendant’s unit and failed to investigate the complaint” before entering defendant’s residence.8 Thus, the majority concluded that “there are too 4 People v Tyler, 399 Mich 564 ; 250 NW2d 467 (1977), aff’d sub nom Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 (1978). 5 Camara v Muni Court of City & Co of San Francisco, 387 US 523 ; 87 S Ct 1727 ; 18 L Ed 2d 930 (1967). 6 People v Davis, 442 Mich 1 ; 497 NW2d 910 (1993). 7 People v Slaughter, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Co