emergency aid doctrine in Arizona

2017For example, the emergency aid doctrine is one exception that may justify a warrantless entry and serves “to ensure the safety and well-being of the public . . . .” State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 240 , 686 P.2d 750, 763 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Wilson, 237 Ariz. 296 , 350 P.3d 800 (2015).

2017For example, the emergency aid doctrine is one exception that may justify a warrantless entry and serves “to ensure the safety and well-being of the public . . . .” State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 240 , 686 P.2d 750, 763 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Wilson, 237 Ariz. 296 , 350 P.3d 800 (2015).

2020Thompson then argues he had revoked the public’s limited license to approach the curtilage of his home, citing State v. Lohse, 245 Ariz. 536 , 540- 41, ¶¶ 10-13 (App. 2018), but that argument ignores the emergency aid exception, Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403 .

2014E.g., People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290, 299-300, 324 (1991) (upholding warrantless entry into *83 apartment to locate missing occupant); People v. Mitchell, 89 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 608-10 (1976) (affirming warrantless entry into hotel room to search for missing chambermaid), abrogated on other grounds by Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 402, 404-05 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006).

2007The Court noted that the "warrantless search must be `strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.'" Id. at 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 25-26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). ¶ 42 In Fisher , the Arizona Supreme Court cited to Mincey and other courts in applying the emergency aid doctrine. 141 Ariz. at 237 , 686 P.2d at 760 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); State v. Wright, 125 Ariz. 36 , 607 P.2d 19 (App.1979); People v. Reynolds, 672 P.2d 529 (Colo.1983); United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351 (D.C.App.1983); People

2007The Court noted that the "warrantless search must be `strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.'" Id. at 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 25-26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ). ¶ 42 In Fisher , the Arizona Supreme Court cited to Mincey and other courts in applying the emergency aid doctrine. 141 Ariz. at 237 , 686 P.2d at 760 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); State v. Wright, 125 Ariz. 36 , 607 P.2d 19 (App.1979); People v. Reynolds, 672 P.2d 529 (Colo.1983); United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351 (D.C.App.1983); People

2024See Inzunza, 234 Ariz. at 82 ¶ 12. ¶20 “[I]n cases such as the emergency aid exception where the warrantless search is limited by the exigency that gives rise to it, the officer’s perception of the exigency is a necessary limitation on the search.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370 , 377 ¶ 25 (App. 2007).

2014The exception may also justify a warrantless search of personal belongings when a person is “unconscious or otherwise unresponsive, is in need of emergency aid and the search is undertaken to facilitate the aid that might be necessary.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, 376, ¶ 22 , 174 P.3d 282, 288 (App.2007); see also State v. Sharp, 193 Ariz. 414, 420, ¶ 15 , 973 P.2d 1171, 1177 (1999) (holding that after officers lawfully entered motel room under emergency aid exception and encountered defendant therein, defendant’s “unresponsive state gave police separate probable cause to inspect the imme

2024See Inzunza, 234 Ariz. at 82 ¶ 12. ¶20 “[I]n cases such as the emergency aid exception where the warrantless search is limited by the exigency that gives rise to it, the officer’s perception of the exigency is a necessary limitation on the search.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370 , 377 ¶ 25 (App. 2007).

2024While warrantless entries into homes are presumptively disallowed, the emergency aid exception authorizes such warrantless entries when “(1) police have reasonable grounds to believe there is an emergency that requires their immediate assistance to protect life or property and (2) there is a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the place to be searched.” State v. Inzunza, 234 Ariz. 78 , 82 ¶ 12 (App. 2014). 6 STATE v. PALMARES Decision of the Court ¶17 The superior court here rejected the application of the emergency aid exception because officers “did not make entry until 5.5 hour

2022But in a similar case, State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356 (App. 2015), we held that the emergency aid exception applied. ¶13 In Bennett, police received a 9-1-1 “hang up” call traced to a specific address. 237 Ariz. at 357, ¶ 2 .

2022But in a similar case, State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356 (App. 2015), we held that the emergency aid exception applied. ¶13 In Bennett, police received a 9-1-1 “hang up” call traced to a specific address. 237 Ariz. at 357, ¶ 2 .

2007Id. at 237-38 , 686 P.2d at 760 -61 (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976)); see also State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 395-96 , 937 P.2d 310, 317-18 (1997) (applying the three elements of the emergency aid exception).

2007Id. at 237-38 , 686 P.2d at 760 -61 (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976)); see also State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 395-96 , 937 P.2d 310, 317-18 (1997) (applying the three elements of the emergency aid exception).

2024While warrantless entries into homes are presumptively disallowed, the emergency aid exception authorizes such warrantless entries when “(1) police have reasonable grounds to believe there is an emergency that requires their immediate assistance to protect life or property and (2) there is a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the place to be searched.” State v. Inzunza, 234 Ariz. 78 , 82 ¶ 12 (App. 2014). 6 STATE v. PALMARES Decision of the Court ¶17 The superior court here rejected the application of the emergency aid exception because officers “did not make entry until 5.5 hour

2014The exception may also justify a warrantless search of personal belongings when a person is “unconscious or otherwise unresponsive, is in need of emergency aid and the search is undertaken to facilitate the aid that might be necessary.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, 376, ¶ 22 , 174 P.3d 282, 288 (App.2007); see also State v. Sharp, 193 Ariz. 414, 420, ¶ 15 , 973 P.2d 1171, 1177 (1999) (holding that after officers lawfully entered motel room under emergency aid exception and encountered defendant therein, defendant’s “unresponsive state gave police separate probable cause to inspect the imme

2007In recognizing the emergency aid doctrine, the United States Supreme Court quoted Terry in prescribing its limits. "[A] warrantless search must be `strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.'" Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ).

2007In recognizing the emergency aid doctrine, the United States Supreme Court quoted Terry in prescribing its limits. "[A] warrantless search must be `strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.'" Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ).

2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299

2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299

2020State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 284 (1996).

2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299

2017The emergency aid doctrine “is triggered when the police enter a dwelling in the reasonable, good-faith belief that there is someone within in need of immediate aid or assistance.” Id. ¶17 In contrast, the exigent circumstances exception generally applies where “a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay until a 4 STATE v. THOMAS Decision of the Court warrant could be obtained.” State v. Greene, 162 Ariz. 431, 433 , 784 P.2d 257, 259 (1989).

2017The emergency aid doctrine “is triggered when the police enter a dwelling in the reasonable, good-faith belief that there is someone within in need of immediate aid or assistance.” Id. ¶17 In contrast, the exigent circumstances exception generally applies where “a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay until a 4 STATE v. THOMAS Decision of the Court warrant could be obtained.” State v. Greene, 162 Ariz. 431, 433 , 784 P.2d 257, 259 (1989).

2015DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Bennett argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to suppress because the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not justify the search. 1 “We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Jacot, 235 Ariz. 224 , 227 ¶ 9, 330 P.3d 981, 984 (App.2014).

2015DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Bennett argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to suppress because the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not justify the search. 1 “We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Jacot, 235 Ariz. 224 , 227 ¶ 9, 330 P.3d 981, 984 (App.2014).

2015See State v. DeWitt, 184 Ariz. 464, 468 , 910 P.2d 9, 13 (1996) (providing that a search conducted without a warrant is constitutional when one of the specific and well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement applies).

2015See State v. DeWitt, 184 Ariz. 464, 468 , 910 P.2d 9, 13 (1996) (providing that a search conducted without a warrant is constitutional when one of the specific and well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement applies).

2014E.g., People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290, 299-300, 324 (1991) (upholding warrantless entry into *83 apartment to locate missing occupant); People v. Mitchell, 89 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 608-10 (1976) (affirming warrantless entry into hotel room to search for missing chambermaid), abrogated on other grounds by Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 402, 404-05 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006).

2014E.g., People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290, 299-300, 324 (1991) (upholding warrantless entry into *83 apartment to locate missing occupant); People v. Mitchell, 89 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 608-10 (1976) (affirming warrantless entry into hotel room to search for missing chambermaid), abrogated on other grounds by Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 402, 404-05 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006).

2007E.g., Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 ; Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392-96 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 ; U.S. v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035 , 1041 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007); Ostroski v. Town of Southold, 443 F.Supp.2d 325, 344-45 (E.D.N.Y.2006); Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 210-14 (D.C.Cir.1963); United States v. Barone, 330 F.2d 543 (2nd Cir.1964); State v. Weaver, 214 Or.App. 633 , 168 P.3d 273 (2007); People v. Davis, 442 Mich. 1 , 497 N.W.2d 910, 920-21 (1993); Salt Lake City v. Davidson, 994 P.2d 1283 (Utah App.2000); see also Matthew Bell, Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: Why Utah

2007E.g., Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 ; Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392-96 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 ; U.S. v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035 , 1041 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007); Ostroski v. Town of Southold, 443 F.Supp.2d 325, 344-45 (E.D.N.Y.2006); Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 210-14 (D.C.Cir.1963); United States v. Barone, 330 F.2d 543 (2nd Cir.1964); State v. Weaver, 214 Or.App. 633 , 168 P.3d 273 (2007); People v. Davis, 442 Mich. 1 , 497 N.W.2d 910, 920-21 (1993); Salt Lake City v. Davidson, 994 P.2d 1283 (Utah App.2000); see also Matthew Bell, Fourth Amendment Reasonableness: Why Utah

2007See generally State v. Amarelle, 190 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Ct.App.2005) (involving the police finding a college identification card and a container of a substance in the open purse of an unresponsive woman); Terry v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 87 , 474 S.E.2d 172 (1996) (involving an officer searching the fanny pack of unaccompanied man in a semiconscious state to find identification, medical information, and the cause of the man’s condition). ¶ 23 Here, unlike any emergency aid ease involving the search of a purse, Appellant was not unresponsive, not unaccompanied, not in obvious need of immediate medi

2007See generally State v. Amarelle, 190 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Ct.App.2005) (involving the police finding a college identification card and a container of a substance in the open purse of an unresponsive woman); Terry v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 87 , 474 S.E.2d 172 (1996) (involving an officer searching the fanny pack of unaccompanied man in a semiconscious state to find identification, medical information, and the cause of the man's condition). ¶ 23 Here, unlike any emergency aid case involving the search of a purse, Appellant was not unresponsive, not unaccompanied, not in obvious need of immediate medi