community caretaking doctrine in New Jersey

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575, 585 (1980).

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); Mangold, 82 N.J. at 585 .

2025"So long as the police had an independent basis . . . under the community caretaking exception that was not a pretext for carrying out an investigatory search," New Jersey courts will find the actions of the police to be lawful Id.

2024The judge further found the circumstances presented to the officer were "objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances for law enforcement to investigate whether the driver of the silver pickup truck was in distress or need of assistance." In addition, the judge found the officer "did not have any information to believe that [d]efendant may have been operating his vehicle while intoxicated at the time that he stopped his car[,]" and "[n]ot[h]ing suggests any pretext of using the community caretaking standard to effectuate a motor vehicle stop because of some hunch that the dri

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575, 585 (1980).

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); Mangold, 82 N.J. at 585 .

2022The community-caretaking doctrine, first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), is an exception to the warrant requirement based on the awareness that police officers "often are called on to perform dual roles." State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 276 (2004).

2021Under the community-caretaking doctrine, "[c]ourts have allowed warrantless searches . . . when police officers have acted not in the law enforcement or criminal investigatory role, but rather in a community [-]caretaking function." State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61, 73 (2009) (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439-48 (1973)).

2026The community caretaking doctrine "applies when the 'police are engaged in functions[ that are] totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a [criminal] statute.'" State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 275 (2004) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150 , 161 n.4 (2004)).

2025In reviewing citizen-police encounters under the community caretaking exception, "courts . . . 'employ a standard of reasonableness to determine the lawfulness of [the] police conduct.'" Diloreto, 180 N.J. at 276 (internal citation omitted).

2024The judge further found the circumstances presented to the officer were "objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances for law enforcement to investigate whether the driver of the silver pickup truck was in distress or need of assistance." In addition, the judge found the officer "did not have any information to believe that [d]efendant may have been operating his vehicle while intoxicated at the time that he stopped his car[,]" and "[n]ot[h]ing suggests any pretext of using the community caretaking standard to effectuate a motor vehicle stop because of some hunch that the dri

2024Under the community caretaking doctrine, "police officers, who act in an objectively reasonable manner, may check on the welfare or safety of a citizen who appears in need of help on the roadway without securing a warrant or offending the Constitution." State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 38 (2016).

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2016In State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J.Super. 362, 364-65 , 507 A.2d 751 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 104 N.J. 458 , 517 A.2d 443 (1986), the community-caretaking doctrine justified a state trooper stopping a car that was driving on the shoulder of a road for one-tenth of a mile with its left-turn signal blinking at 4:00 a.m.

2016In State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J.Super. 362, 364-65 , 507 A.2d 751 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 104 N.J. 458 , 517 A.2d 443 (1986), the community-caretaking doctrine justified a state trooper stopping a car that was driving on the shoulder of a road for one-tenth of a mile with its left-turn signal blinking at 4:00 a.m.

2015Ed. 2d 1201, 1221-22 (1983), or under the community caretaking doctrine explained in State v. Navarro, 310 N.J.

2009Although the court found the warrantless entry to be permissible under the emergency aid doctrine, 9 id. at 44-46 , 636 A.2d 541 , the court equally could have justified the actions of the police under the community caretaking doctrine, see State v. Navarro, 310 N.J.Super. 104, 109 , 708 A.2d 416 (App.Div.) (“A danger that children ... may obtain access to a gun is one circumstance which may justify the police entering private property in the performance of their *77 community caretaking responsibilities.”), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 382 , 718 A.2d 1211 (1998).

2024State v. Harris, 211 N.J. 566, 581 (2012).

2017State v. Harris, 211 N.J. 566, 581 (2012).

2021Under the community caretaking exception, first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), police may "engage in what has been 'described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.'" State v. Garbin, 325 N.J.

2009We held that “[i]n addition to harboring safety concerns as caretakers, the police lawfully accumulated information to meet the probable cause and exigency standards before searching defendant’s car____ [T]heir conduct at the encounter’s outset was totally divorced from a criminal investigatory role in satisfaction of the community caretaker doctrine.” Id. at 282 , 850 A.2d 1226 (citation omitted); see also State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 247-48 , 927 A.2d 1250 (2007) (noting that state troopers initially acted within community earetaking responsibility by stopping to render roadside assistance

2018State v. Wright, 221 N.J. 456, 468 (2015) (citing State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301, 325 (2013)).

2016The Court observed that "when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals" and stands "at the Amendment's very core." This Court also recently emphasized the preeminent position of a private residence when it held that the community-caretaking doctrine, standing alone, could not justify a warrantless search of a home. [State v. Wright, 221 N.J. 456, 467 (2015) (internal citations omitted).] Because the search conducted here by the Union County Sheriff's Department in conjunction with a Plainfield Police Officer was not justifiable under the community-caretaking or emergenc

2017Super. at 89 (quoting State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 503 (1986)). 7 A-1487-15T1 As these legal standards imply, the two-part application of the community caretaking doctrine is a fact-sensitive inquiry.

1998See State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 498 , 517 A. 2d 859 (1986).

2016State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007). 5 A-5838-13T1 Our Supreme Court recently held that "the community- caretaking doctrine is not a justification for the warrantless entry and search of a home in the absence of some form of an objectively reasonable emergency." State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301, 305 (2013).

2009We held that “[i]n addition to harboring safety concerns as caretakers, the police lawfully accumulated information to meet the probable cause and exigency standards before searching defendant’s car____ [T]heir conduct at the encounter’s outset was totally divorced from a criminal investigatory role in satisfaction of the community caretaker doctrine.” Id. at 282 , 850 A.2d 1226 (citation omitted); see also State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 247-48 , 927 A.2d 1250 (2007) (noting that state troopers initially acted within community earetaking responsibility by stopping to render roadside assistance

2013Ibid.; United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994) (refusing to extend communitycaretaking exception to warrantless search of commercial building because “the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement is applicable only in cases involving automobile searches” (citations omitted)); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1993) (“The fact that a police officer is performing a community caretaking function [] cannot itself justify a warrantless search of a private residence.”); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 206-09 (7th Cir.1982) (rejecting argum

2013Ibid.; United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994) (refusing to extend communitycaretaking exception to warrantless search of commercial building because “the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement is applicable only in cases involving automobile searches” (citations omitted)); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1993) (“The fact that a police officer is performing a community caretaking function [] cannot itself justify a warrantless search of a private residence.”); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 206-09 (7th Cir.1982) (rejecting argum

2013Other circuit courts, under the banner of the community-care-taking doctrine, have upheld a warrantless entry or search of a home when a seeming emergency is at hand, United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.2006) (“A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” (citations omitted)), and when a home is the source of an ongoing nuisance, United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996) (“[T]he governmental interest in immediately abati

2013Edmonds, supra, 211 N.J. at 143 -44 & n. 13, 47 A.3d 737 (citing Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Rolvrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. York, 895 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 207-09 (7th Cir.1982)). 13 In short, federal jurisprudence does not compel this Court to depart from its prior decisions recognizi

2013Edmonds, supra, 211 N.J. at 143 -44 & n. 13, 47 A.3d 737 (citing Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Rolvrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. York, 895 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 207-09 (7th Cir.1982)). 13 In short, federal jurisprudence does not compel this Court to depart from its prior decisions recognizi

2012United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. York, 895 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990).

2013Other circuit courts, under the banner of the community-care-taking doctrine, have upheld a warrantless entry or search of a home when a seeming emergency is at hand, United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.2006) (“A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” (citations omitted)), and when a home is the source of an ongoing nuisance, United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996) (“[T]he governmental interest in immediately abati

2013Edmonds, supra, 211 N.J. at 143 -44 & n. 13, 47 A.3d 737 (citing Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Rolvrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. York, 895 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 207-09 (7th Cir.1982)). 13 In short, federal jurisprudence does not compel this Court to depart from its prior decisions recognizi

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2013See State v. Washington, 296 N.J.Super. 569, 572-73 , 687 A.2d 343 (App.Div. 1997) (holding that officer had a “reasonably objective basis” under the community-caretaking exception justifying a stop when the driver wove within his lane of travel at an “unconventionally slow speed”); State v. Drummond, 305 N.J.Super. 84, 88 , 701 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1997) (finding that a "reasonably objective police officer would have been justified in 'making an inquiry on property and life' when observing a darkened car with no one outside it, parked shortly before midnight next to” a closed car wash); State v.

2025See State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244 , 262 (2022) (noting the community-caretaking exception "may be implicated where police observe A-2941-22 15 'something abnormal . . . concerning the operation of a motor vehicle'" (quoting State v. Cohen, 347 N.J.

2017The court relied in part on three of our decisions sustaining traffic stops based on the community caretaking exception: State v. Cohen, 347 N.J.

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575, 585 (1980).

2024Although our Court has narrowed its applicability regarding searches of homes, e.g., Vargas, 213 N.J. at 305 ; Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 143 , the Court has applied the community caretaking doctrine to automobile searches, e.g., State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 277 , 280- 81 (2004); Mangold, 82 N.J. at 585 .

2023See Edmonds, 211 N.J. at 140 (explaining that the officers' entry into a home to assure the safety of a child following an anonymous 9-1-1 report of domestic violence was permissible under the emergency aid doctrine "[b]ut once there was no longer an objective basis to believe that an emergency was at hand, '[t]he privacy interests of the home [were] entitled to the highest degree of respect.'" (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355, 384 (2003))); Bogan, 200 N.J. at 65 (upholding under the community-caretaking doctrine an officer's entry into an apartm

2013The Court applies the exclusionary rule, intended to deter search and seizure violations and “to ensure that police do not ‘profit’ from lawless behavior.” State v. Herrerra, 211 N.J. 308, 330 , 48 A.3d 1009 (2012) (quoting State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355, 376 , 815 A.2d 432 (2003)).