community caretaking exception in Indiana

2016Berry, 704 N.E.2d at 465 . [10] In Osborne v. State, 54 N.E.3d 428, 433-34 (Ind.Ct.App.2016), not yet certified, this court explained the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment as follows: The concept of a “community caretaking function” was first articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 443 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), where, following an accident, officers conducted a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle in an effort to locate a firearm that the driver was known to possess in order “to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver woul

2016Berry, 704 N.E.2d at 465 . [10] In Osborne v. State, 54 N.E.3d 428, 433-34 (Ind.Ct.App.2016), not yet certified, this court explained the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment as follows: The concept of a “community caretaking function” was first articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 443 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), where, following an accident, officers conducted a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle in an effort to locate a firearm that the driver was known to possess in order “to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver woul

2016Moreover, “[t]he core of the community-caretaking doctrine ... has been left with little doctrinal guidance from the Supreme Court other than the vague command of reasonableness.” State v. Kurth, 813 N.W.2d 270, 273 (Iowa 2012).

2016See Kurth, 813 N.W.2d at 277 (espousing a test similar to Wisconsin’s, but in determining whether an officer was engaged in- bona fide community caretaker activity, Iowa considers whether the conduct falls within “(1) the emergency aid doctrine, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory doctrine, [or] (3) the ‘public servant’ exception”); and State v. Smathers, 232 N.C.App. 120 , 753 S.E.2d 380, 386 (2014) (adopting Wisconsin’s test). [23] Like the “majority of state courts throughout the country” that have adopted the community caretaking exception, we recognize that law enforcement officers d

2016See Poe, 169 S.W.3d at 59 (finding the community caretaking exception did not apply where an officer stopped an apparently lost driver in order to offer directions as there was “no evidence such as a flat tire, flashing lights, jumper cables, a raised hood or any other indication that [the defendant] required assistance”); and Button, 86 A.3d at 1002, 1004 (concluding that the objective grounds did not provide a reasonable basis to believe the driver was in distress where a vehicle stopped on- the shoulder of a back-country road, where it posed no danger to oncoming traffic” and where the defe

2016We understand that vehicle impoundments fall under the community caretaking function because “[c]ommunity safety often requires police to' impound vehicles because they are abandoned and obstruct traffic, create a nuisance, or invite thieves and vandals,” Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371, 375 (Ind.2016).

2016Berry, 704 N.E.2d at 465 . [10] In Osborne v. State, 54 N.E.3d 428, 433-34 (Ind.Ct.App.2016), not yet certified, this court explained the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment as follows: The concept of a “community caretaking function” was first articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 443 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), where, following an accident, officers conducted a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle in an effort to locate a firearm that the driver was known to possess in order “to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver woul

2016See Kurth, 813 N.W.2d at 277 (espousing a test similar to Wisconsin’s, but in determining whether an officer was engaged in- bona fide community caretaker activity, Iowa considers whether the conduct falls within “(1) the emergency aid doctrine, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory doctrine, [or] (3) the ‘public servant’ exception”); and State v. Smathers, 232 N.C.App. 120 , 753 S.E.2d 380, 386 (2014) (adopting Wisconsin’s test). [23] Like the “majority of state courts throughout the country” that have adopted the community caretaking exception, we recognize that law enforcement officers d

2016See Kurth, 813 N.W.2d at 277 (espousing a test similar to Wisconsin’s, but in determining whether an officer was engaged in- bona fide community caretaker activity, Iowa considers whether the conduct falls within “(1) the emergency aid doctrine, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory doctrine, [or] (3) the ‘public servant’ exception”); and State v. Smathers, 232 N.C.App. 120 , 753 S.E.2d 380, 386 (2014) (adopting Wisconsin’s test). [23] Like the “majority of state courts throughout the country” that have adopted the community caretaking exception, we recognize that law enforcement officers d

2013See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1523-24 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that police may enter a home to abate a nuisance when the occupants have not responded to police inquiries); United States v. Queza da, 448 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that police may enter a home to investigate an outside door that is open when there is no response to the officers’ inquiries); cf. Montgomery v. State, 904 N.E.2d 374, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (applying exigent circumstances and caretaking rationales to justify a warrantless entry into a hotel room).

2013See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1523-24 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that police may enter a home to abate a nuisance when the occupants have not responded to police inquiries); United States v. Queza da, 448 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that police may enter a home to investigate an outside door that is open when there is no response to the officers’ inquiries); cf. Montgomery v. State, 904 N.E.2d 374, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (applying exigent circumstances and caretaking rationales to justify a warrantless entry into a hotel room).

2013See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1523-24 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that police may enter a home to abate a nuisance when the occupants have not responded to police inquiries); United States v. Queza da, 448 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that police may enter a home to investigate an outside door that is open when there is no response to the officers’ inquiries); cf. Montgomery v. State, 904 N.E.2d 374, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (applying exigent circumstances and caretaking rationales to justify a warrantless entry into a hotel room).