emergency aid exception in Wisconsin

2025The officers “[did] not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, life-threatening’ injury[.]” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009). ¶25 Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the officers’ entry and sweep was justified under the emergency aid doctrine and affirm.

2023The United States Supreme Court has further explained that “[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, life-threatening’ injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” Fisher, 558 U.S. at 49 (citations omitted). 18 No. 2023AP86-CR State v. Ware, 2021 WI App 83, ¶¶20-22 , 400 Wis. 2d 118 , 968 N.W.2d 752 (Ware reflects third, sixth, and seventh alterations).

2025Id.; State v. Ware, 2021 WI App 83, ¶20 , 400 Wis. 2d 118 , 968 N.W.2d 752 . ¶21 The emergency aid doctrine provides that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent a government official from making a warrantless entry “when the official reasonably believes that a person is in need of immediate aid or assistance.” Ware, 400 Wis. 2d 118, ¶20 (citation omitted).

2025Id.; State v. Ware, 2021 WI App 83, ¶20 , 400 Wis. 2d 118 , 968 N.W.2d 752 . ¶21 The emergency aid doctrine provides that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent a government official from making a warrantless entry “when the official reasonably believes that a person is in need of immediate aid or assistance.” Ware, 400 Wis. 2d 118, ¶20 (citation omitted).

2025See Ware, 400 Wis. 2d 118 , ¶14 & n.4. ¶17 Instead of the community caretaker exception, the State argues on appeal that warrantless entry into Wilkie’s home was legally authorized by the emergency aid exception.9 The emergency aid exception “recognize[s] that the Fourth Amendment does not bar a government official from making a warrantless intrusion when the official reasonably believes that a person is in need of immediate aid or assistance.” Rome, 239 Wis. 2d 491, ¶12 .

2021State v. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, ¶31 , 366 Wis. 2d 443 , 875 N.W.2d 567 (three-part community caretaker test); State v. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, ¶16 , 239 Wis. 2d 491 , 620 N.W.2d 225 (quoting State v. Boggess, 115 Wis. 2d 443, 452 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983)) (two-part emergency aid test). 7 No. 2020AP1559-CR concerned that there was a person in the garage who needed aid in the form of medical treatment.6 ¶17 We begin by setting forth our standard of review and governing principles regarding the emergency aid exception.

2023The exception involved in this appeal is the emergency aid exception, which has been recognized by both the United States Supreme Court, see Caniglia, 141 S. Ct. at 1599 , and the Wisconsin Supreme Court, see State v. Boggess, 115 Wis. 2d 443, 449-50 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983).

2023Caniglia, 141 S. Ct. at 1598, 1600 .6 ¶42 The circuit court here recognized this problem by the time of its decision in June 2022 denying Gollon’s suppression motion and further recognized that the prosecution was attempting to relabel its argument to one based on the emergency aid exception.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2025See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[C]ases should be decided on the narrowest possible ground[.]”). ¶20 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A warrantless search of a home is presumptively unreasonable.

2025See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[C]ases should be decided on the narrowest possible ground[.]”). ¶20 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A warrantless search of a home is presumptively unreasonable.

2024See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011); Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam).

2024See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011); Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam).

2024See State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 652, 659 , 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997) (officer's warrantless entry into home not justified under community caretaking because he arrested a juvenile and had thus stepped out of his caretaking role); State v. Paterson, 220 Wis. 2d 526, 535-36 , 583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1998) (even if officer's warrantless home entry in response to a reported burglary was bona fide community caretaking activity, the balancing test tipped in defendant's favor). 16 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh assistance," it upheld the warrantless entry using the community caretaking framework outlined

2024See State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 652, 659 , 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997) (officer's warrantless entry into home not justified under community caretaking because he arrested a juvenile and had thus stepped out of his caretaking role); State v. Paterson, 220 Wis. 2d 526, 535-36 , 583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1998) (even if officer's warrantless home entry in response to a reported burglary was bona fide community caretaking activity, the balancing test tipped in defendant's favor). 16 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh assistance," it upheld the warrantless entry using the community caretaking framework outlined

2024See State v. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102, ¶1 , 244 Wis. 2d 17 , 629 N.W.2d 788 (upholding warrantless bedroom search because officers discovered underage drinking in the apartment and feared occupants of a locked room may be injured); State v. Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249, ¶¶17-34 , 287 Wis. 2d 831 , 707 N.W.2d 565 (upholding warrantless home entry after police received 911 call about the defendant's two vicious dogs on the loose and officers found his back door ajar); State v. Truax, 2009 WI App 60 , ¶¶11- 21, 318 Wis. 2d 113 , 767 N.W.2d 369 (upholding seizure because officer saw defendant abrupt

2024See State v. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102, ¶1 , 244 Wis. 2d 17 , 629 N.W.2d 788 (upholding warrantless bedroom search because officers discovered underage drinking in the apartment and feared occupants of a locked room may be injured); State v. Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249, ¶¶17-34 , 287 Wis. 2d 831 , 707 N.W.2d 565 (upholding warrantless home entry after police received 911 call about the defendant's two vicious dogs on the loose and officers found his back door ajar); State v. Truax, 2009 WI App 60 , ¶¶11- 21, 318 Wis. 2d 113 , 767 N.W.2d 369 (upholding seizure because officer saw defendant abrupt

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024Id. 5 Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 6Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40 (1963) (plurality opinion). 7Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298 (1967); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976). 8Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 403 (1978); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). 12 No. 2021AP2105-CR.bh ¶53 But the emergency aid exception was understood to be limited in nature, applying only to the provision of emergency aid.

2024The court provided two examples: (1) State v. Kraimer, 99 Wis. 2d 306 , 298 N.W.2d 568 (1980), where “[t]he caller stated, in part, that he had shot and that he believed he had killed his wife four days earlier, that his four children were at home with him, and that he was very upset[,]” Boggess, 115 Wis. 2d at 452 ; and (2) State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597 , 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), where “police made a warrantless entry into a home after receiving a police radio dispatch to go to the defendant’s address because of a report that there supposedly was a child’s body and a semiconscious woman in the

2021Even though the government officials had not personally observed any indication of harm to the children before entering the home, our supreme court concluded that a reasonable person could have relied on the anonymous caller’s information and “believed that a situation existed requiring an immediate need for aid or assistance due to actual or threatened physical injury to the children.” Id. at 457 ; see also Kraimer, 99 Wis. 2d at 316-29 (concluding that the emergency aid exception allowed police to enter a home where the police received an anonymous call from a man confessing that he had shot

2025As Meincke stated during cross-examination, “I’m not going to leave my partner at the front door with somebody who is being uncooperative to go sit at a back door when we don’t know what’s going on inside, and we have a potential problem, and this seems likely to be our … problem person.” Further, whether the officers could have left Wilkie at the front door and entered through the back door has no bearing on whether the officers had lawful authority to enter the home under the emergency aid exception. 12 In his reply brief, Wilkie also makes a brief reference to State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81,

2025As Meincke stated during cross-examination, “I’m not going to leave my partner at the front door with somebody who is being uncooperative to go sit at a back door when we don’t know what’s going on inside, and we have a potential problem, and this seems likely to be our … problem person.” Further, whether the officers could have left Wilkie at the front door and entered through the back door has no bearing on whether the officers had lawful authority to enter the home under the emergency aid exception. 12 In his reply brief, Wilkie also makes a brief reference to State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81,

2025See State v. Castillo, 213 Wis. 2d 488, 492 , 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997) (“An appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds.”).

2025See State v. Castillo, 213 Wis. 2d 488, 492 , 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997) (“An appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds.”).

2023See Larsen, 302 Wis. 2d 718, ¶18 (“whether a warrantless home entry is justified based on the need to render assistance or prevent harm is judged by an objective test”).

2023See City of Sheboygan, 330 Wis. 2d 760, ¶17 .

2023See State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, ¶¶19-20 , 317 Wis. 2d 586 , 767 N.W.2d 187 (under exigency analysis, the State may rebut the presumption that warrantless entry to residence was unreasonable by proving that officers had probable cause to believe that an occupant committed a jailable offense and that exigent circumstances necessitated prompt action).

2023See State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, ¶¶19-20 , 317 Wis. 2d 586 , 767 N.W.2d 187 (under exigency analysis, the State may rebut the presumption that warrantless entry to residence was unreasonable by proving that officers had probable cause to believe that an occupant committed a jailable offense and that exigent circumstances necessitated prompt action).

2021See Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542, 561 (7th Cir. 2014).