Sign In
  • InsideTrack
  • January 30, 2009

    Police 'caretaker function' basis for warrantless seizure, Wisconsin Supreme Court says

    Evidence obtained during a police officer’s checkup on a motorist may be admissible as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held.

    Alex De Grand

    Jan. 30, 2009 – Evidence arising from a police officer’s checkup on a motorist’s wellbeing may be admissible as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held Jan. 29.

    In State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14, Todd Lee Kramer had parked his car at night to the side of a highway. A police officer noticed the hazard lights flashing on Kramer’s car and pulled up behind him with the cruiser’s emergency overhead lights activated. When the officer spoke to Kramer, he stated he was checking if Kramer’s car had broken down.

    The officer reported that Kramer’s speech was slurred and the odor of intoxicants came from within the car. Kramer was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

    Kramer moved to suppress evidence from this encounter, arguing that the officer’s use of emergency overhead lights while pulling up behind him constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. Kramer contended there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support the intrusion. Aside from the fact the truck was stopped on a roadside with its warning lights flashing, the truck did not appear to be damaged or disabled.  The officer said he observed nothing suggesting that a crime was being committed or that any traffic laws were being broken.

    Without expressly deciding whether this amounted to a seizure, the circuit court and court of appeals permitted introduction of the evidence because it arose within the officer’s role as a “community caretaker” – not as an enforcer of the law. The “community caretaker” refers to non-investigatory activities that advance public safety such as removing a vehicle from the road because it was a hazard.

    The court of appeals dismissed Kramer’s complaint that the officer admitted to harboring a generalized concern as he approached the car that there might be criminal activity afoot. The court of appeals observed that a police officer would rarely be able to qualify as a community caretaker if required to have absolutely no thought for law enforcement.

    Affirming the court of appeals decision, the supreme court used a three-part test for evaluating claims of police “community caretaker” functions:

    • That a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred.
    • If it is a “seizure,” was the police conduct bona fide caretaker activity?
    • Was the public interest outweighed by intrusion upon the individual’s privacy?

    In this case, the supreme court assumed without deciding that a Fourth Amendment seizure had occurred. 

    Within the second step, the supreme court ruled that the purported caretaker activity does not need to be completely separated from the law enforcement aspect of the officer’s job, as Kramer advocated. The court applied a totality of the circumstances test to find whether an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function exists. The officer’s subjective intent behind the action is only one factor to consider, the court said.

    The court held that if an officer can articulate an objectively reasonable basis under the totality of circumstances for the community caretaker function, the standard for a bona fide community caretaker has been met.

    Applying the facts of this case, the court said a car with flashing hazard lights on the side of a highway after dark is sufficient to trigger the officer’s community caretaker function and is not negated by a subjective belief that criminal activity might be occurring, the court found.

    Turning to the third step, the court employed a four-factor balancing test:

    • What was the degree of the public interest and the exigency of the situation?
    • What were the attendant circumstances surrounding the seizure, including time, location, the degree of overt authority, and force displayed?
    • Was an automobile involved?
    • What was the availability, feasibility, and effectiveness of alternatives to the intrusion?

    In this case, the court found a substantial public interest in ensuring that police assist motorists. Considering the circumstances of the seizure, the court said that the use of emergency lights on the police cruiser was not only a permissible display of authority but also a wise safety precaution given that the incident occurred on a two-lane country highway near the crest of a hill.

    The court found no fault with the officer’s approach of the car because he had to first determine if the vehicle was occupied. The court also concluded that the officer had no feasible alternatives, rejecting Kramer’s suggestion that the officer should have driven past his car and then return a few minutes later before checking on him. If Kramer had needed medical attention, the court noted, any delay could have prevented effective assistance.

    Alex De Grand is the legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY