community caretaking doctrine in New York

2025While checking for injuries, he considered that Defendant may have been involved in the collision ( see generally People v Brown , 42 NY3d 270 [2024] [noting that the community caretaking doctrine permits minor police intrusions as needed for them to assist drivers whose vehicles become disabled for reasons totally divorced from criminality]).

2025While checking for injuries, he considered that Defendant may have been involved in the collision ( see generally People v Brown , 42 NY3d 270 [2024] [noting that the community caretaking doctrine permits minor police intrusions as needed for them to assist drivers whose vehicles become disabled for reasons totally divorced from criminality]).

2021"A review of federal and state cases that have applied the community caretaking exception to the stop of a moving vehicle reveals that the appropriate standard is one of reasonableness" ( People v Fenti , 57 Misc 3d 471, 478 [Town of Penfield Just Ct 2017]).

2021Therefore, before a police officer may effect a traffic stop for a welfare check of the driver or passengers of a vehicle, there must exist a reasonable "basis for the police to believe that [there] was [a] need of assistance prior to the stop of the car" ( People v Del Rio , 61 Misc 3d 944 , 951 [Middletown City Ct 2018]; see Fenti , 57 Misc 3d at 478 ["under the community caretaking exception, the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which support a finding that the officer reasonably concluded that the motorist was in need of assistance"]).

2025Addressing parking violations could be understood as part of an officer's community-caretaking function. ( See, e.g. , Opperman , 428 U.S. at 368).

2025Addressing parking violations could be understood as part of an officer's community-caretaking function. ( See, e.g. , Opperman , 428 U.S. at 368).

2024For an automobile stop, this means that any continuation of the stop beyond what is necessary to ascertain whether an occupant needs aid requires at least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity ( see Rodriguez v United States , 575 US 348 , 350, 354-355 [2015]; People v Banks , 85 NY2d 558, 562 [1995]). "[C]ommunity caretaking permits only the use of evidence duly discovered in the course of advancing the caretaking function at hand" ( Morgan , 71 F4th at 545). [FN4] Further police intrusion must be constitutionally justified. {**42 NY3d at 280}We respectfully disagree with our concurring c

2024The emergency doctrine, however, allows police to act only to "assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury" ( Brigham City v Stuart , 547 US 398, 403 [2006]; see Caniglia , 593 US at 198; Molnar , 98 NY2d at 332 ["(T)he 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" (internal quotation marks omitted)]).

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024By putting on notice "officer[s] engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" ( Johnson v United States , 333 US 10, 14 [1948]), that exploitation of the community caretaking doctrine would be fruitless in that enterprise, only strict application of the exclusionary rule to community caretaking-based intrusions would prevent the majority's new doctrine from spiraling into a judicially-licensed pretext for ordinary crimefighting unbounded by the Fourth Amendment's familiar limitations.

2024The Court concluded that "[w]hat is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes" ( id. ). {**42 NY3d at 276}In the wake of Caniglia and its focus on the home, one of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal to address the question concluded that Caniglia has no impact on the community caretaking doctrine as applied to vehicles ( see United States v Treisman , 71 F4th 225, 232 [4th Cir 2023]; see also e.g.

2024Others have concluded that Caniglia should serve as a reminder that the community caretaking doctrine cannot be used to "overrun core Fourth Amendment protections" and "permits only the use of evidence duly discovered in the course of advancing the caretaking function at hand" ( United States v Morgan , 71 F4th 540, 545 [6th Cir 2023]).

2024In light of our previous recognition that police officers are often called upon to provide "historically grounded, and usually welcome" aid to those in distress ( see id. at 545), we, like many other state high courts, recognize a community caretaking doctrine that may allow police to stop a moving vehicle.

2024Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that Cady and the community caretaking doctrine has no application to warrantless searches and seizures inside the home ( see Caniglia v Strom , 593 US 194 [2021]).

2024Although emergencies and exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry into the home, the Court held that the community caretaking doctrine does not ( see id. at 197-199).

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024For example, the community caretaking doctrine has been held to justify the stop of a moving vehicle where a passenger appears unconscious and possibly in need of medical assistance but not necessarily in imminent danger ( see id. at 924-925 ); where police stop motorists to warn of a downed tree ( see Hinton , 198 Vt at 173, 112 A3d at 775); and where a passenger appears to be flagging the police officer for assistance ( see State v Rohde , 22 Neb App 926 , 942-943, 864 NW2d 704 , 715 [2015]).

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2024The emergency doctrine, however, allows police to act only to "assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury" ( Brigham City v Stuart , 547 US 398, 403 [2006]; see Caniglia , 593 US at 198; Molnar , 98 NY2d at 332 ["(T)he 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" (internal quotation marks omitted)]).

2024We recognize, however, that the community caretaking doctrine is subject to abuse, and we caution that suppression courts should carefully scrutinize automobile stops where community caretaking is proffered as the justification in order to prevent abuse of the doctrine ( see McCormick , 494 SW3d at 688 ["(W)hen 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"]).

2024We recognize, however, that the community caretaking doctrine is subject to abuse, and we caution that suppression courts should carefully scrutinize automobile stops where community caretaking is proffered as the justification in order to prevent abuse of the doctrine ( see McCormick , 494 SW3d at 688 ["(W)hen 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"]).

2024This Court has long recognized, however, that the "role of the police in our society is a multifaceted one" and that the police have an "obligation . . . to render assistance to those in distress" ( People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 218 [1976]).

2024State v Short Bull , 2019 SD 28 , ¶¶ 11-21, 928 NW2d 473, 476-478 [2019]; Byram v State , 510 SW3d 918, 922-925 [Tex Crim App 2017]; State v Scriven , 226 NJ 20, 38-40, 140 A3d 535, 545-546 [2016]; State v McCormick , 494 SW3d 673, 686-688 [Tenn 2016]; State v Anderson , 2015 UT 90, ¶¶ 25-30 , 362 P3d 1232, 1239-1240 [Utah 2015]; State v Hinton , 198 Vt 167, 170-173, 112 A3d 770, 773-775 [2014]; State v Kurth , 813 NW2d 270, 277-279 [Iowa 2012];{**42 NY3d at 275} Trejo v State , 2008-CT-02133-SCT, ¶¶ 14-18, 76 So 3d 684, 689-690 [Miss 2011]; People v McDonough , 239 Ill 2d 260, 268-272, [*3] 9

2017See also State v Chisholm (39 Wash App 864, 696 P2d 41 [1985]), where the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that the community caretaking exception allowed a police officer to stop a vehicle and warn the motorist that his property was in jeopardy of blowing out of the bed of his pickup truck, and People v Mains (2012 Ill App [2d] 110262, 969 NE2d 926 [2012]), where the Appellate Court of Illinois concluded that the community caretaking exception allowed a police officer to stop a vehicle to determine if the motorist needed assistance where the motorist was driving a malfunctioning vehicle