Alr Emergency Search

Source: All Sources : Federal Legal - U.S. : Federal Court Cases and ALR, Combined Courts Terms: paramedic or emergency medical technician and law review (Edit Search)

11 A.L.R.5th 52, * ALR 5th; Copyright (c) 1999 Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. ANNOTATION LAWFULNESS OF SEARCH OF PERSON OR PERSONAL EFFECTS UNDER MEDICAL EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT Tracy A. Bateman, J.D. 11 A.L.R.5th 52 TOTAL CLIENT-SERVICE LIBRARY(R) REFERENCES The following references may be of related or collateral interest to a user of this annotation. Annotations See the related annotations listed in the body of the annotation. Encyclopedias and Texts 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures �� 44, 56 8 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Criminal Procedure � 22:159 12 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Evidence �� 33:388, 33:390 Practice Aids 7 Federal Procedural Forms, L Ed, Criminal Procedure �� 20:571-20:575, 20:621 8 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Criminal Procedure, Forms 241, 245, 247, 258 22 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Searches and Seizures, Forms 71-73, 75, 81-86 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence Federal Statutes U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4, USCS Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104 USCS Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(3), 12(f), 41(e), 41(f) Digests and Indexes L Ed Digest, Search and Seizure �� 11, 25 ALR Digest, Search and Seizure �� 5, 15, 16, 17 ALR Index, Baggage; Briefcase; Clothing; Criminal Procedure Rules; Drugs and Narcotics; Evidence; Exclusion and Suppression of Evidence; Health; Medical Care and Treatment; Privacy; Purses and Wallets; Search and Seizure Auto-Cite(R) Cases and annotations referred to herein can be further researched through

the Auto-Cite(R) computer-assisted research service. Use Auto-Cite to check citations for form, parallel references, prior and later history, and annotation references. RESEARCH SOURCES The following are the research sources that were found to be helpful in compiling this annotation. Encyclopedias 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures �� 44, 56 79 CJS, Searches and Seizures � 66(a-c) Texts Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused � 3:34 Hall, Search and Seizure �� 7:10-7:12 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure 2d �� 5.4(c), 5.5(d) Orfield's Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules � 41 1 Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions � 10.4(2) Wharton's Criminal Procedure 13th Ed �� 169-177 14 Words and Phrases (Emergency Aid Doctrine, Emergency Doctrine, Emergency Exception) Law Review Articles Mascolo, The Emergency Doctrine Exception to the Warrant Requirement Under the Fourth Amendment, 22 Buffalo L Rev 419 (1972) Electronic Search Query (search! w/25 emergency w/25 aid or medical w/25 pocket or purse or wallet or luggage or briefcase or bag) West Digest Key Numbers Criminal Law 394.4(13) Drugs and Narcotics 182(3), 184, 184(1, 3, 5) Military Justice 1066 Searches and Seizures 23, 24, 39, 42, 53, 192 -------------------CONTENTS: To view a section or subsection, transmit p* and its number. Ex.,p*1 or p*1a To view the Table-of-Cases, transmit p*cases To view the Index (where available), transmit p*index I. Preliminary Matters � 1. Introduction [a] Scope [b] Related annotations � 2. Summary and comment [a] Summary [b] Practice pointers II. Searches of Victims of Vehicular Accident � 3. Where person being treated by medical professionals at time of search � 4. Where person not being treated by medical professionals at time of search

[a] Evidence found held admissible [b] Evidence found held not admissible III. Searches of Persons Found Suffering from Unknown Ailment � 5. Where person found unconscious � 6. Where person found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent, or otherwise unable to provide identification or information regarding condition [a] Search held reasonable [b] Search held not reasonable IV. Other Searches � 7. Shooting victims [a] In general [b] After identification found � 8. Stabbing victims � 9. Persons known to be intoxicated � 10. Victims of apparent drug overdose [a] Search held reasonable [b] Search held not reasonable � 11. Victims of apparent mental illness [a] Search held reasonable [b] Search held not reasonable � 12. Domestic violence [a] Search held reasonable [b] Search held unreasonable [*cases]

Jurisdictional Table of Cited Statutes and Cases n* - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n* Statutes, rules, regulations, and constitutional provisions bearing on the subject of the annotation are included in this table only to the extent, and in the form, that they are reflected in the court opinions discussed in this annotation. The reader should consult the appropriate statutory or regulatory compilations to ascertain the current status of relevant statutes, rules, regulations, and constitutional provisions. For federal cases involving state law, see state headings. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - UNITED STATES State v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997)-� 12[a] United States v Barone (1964, CA2 NY) 330 F2d 543-� 2[a] United States v Black (1988, CA6 Ky) 860 F2d 1080, 1988 US App LEXIS 14189-� 5 United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201-�� 5, 6[b] United States v Haley (1978, CA8 Mo) 581 F2d 723-� 5 Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250-�� 5, 6[b], 10[a] ALASKA Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834-�� 2[a], 6[b] CALIFORNIA People v Gomez (1964, 1st Dist) 229 Cal App 2d 781, 40 Cal Rptr 616-� 5

People v Gonzales (1960, 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920-�� 6[b], 8 COLORADO People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947-�� 2[a, b], 3 FLORIDA Evans v State (1978, Fla App D3) 364 So 2d 93-� 6[a] Shepherd v State (1977, Fla App D1) 343 So 2d 1349-� 7[b] State v Hutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027-�� 9, 10[a] ILLINOIS People v Rossi 233-� 6[b] People v Smith 7[a] People v Smith People v Tyler NE2d 240-��

(1981, 2d Dist) 102 Ill App 3d 1069, 58 Ill Dec 291, 430 NE2d (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492-�� 2[b], 3, 6[b], (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139-� 6[a, b] (1991, 5th Dist) 210 Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569 3, 7[a]

KANSAS State v Nelson (March 21, 1985, Kan App) Slip Op-� 9 State v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997)-� 12[b] MARYLAND Bouldin v State (1975) 26 Md App 545, 338 A2d 404-� 3 Floyd v State (1975) 24 Md App 363, 330 A2d 677-� 7[a] MINNESOTA State v Auman (1986, Minn App) 386 NW2d 818-� 10[a] MISSOURI State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435-�� 2[b], 5, 6[b] NEW JERSEY State v Agent (1968) 101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846-� 5 NORTH DAKOTA Fargo, City of v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176-�� 4[a], 9 OHIO State v Underwood (April 28, 1982, Ohio App, 12th Dist, Clermont Co) Slip Op-� 6[b] OREGON Oregon Supreme Court in State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143-� 9 State v Hampton (1982) 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744-� 11[b] State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459-�� 4[b], 11[a] State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143-� 9 State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201-�� 4[b], 11[a] SOUTH CAROLINA State v Patrick (1970) 255 SC 130, 177 SE2d 545-� 7[a] TEXAS Broadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283-�� 2[b], 4[a]

Perez v State (1974, Tex Crim) 514 SW2d 748-� 5 Tijerina v State (1979, Tex Crim) 578 SW2d 415-� 5 Vargas v State (1976, Tex Crim) 542 SW2d 151-� 5 WASHINGTON State v Hutchison (1990) 56 Wash App 863, 785 State v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d State v Lowrimore (1992) 67 Wash App 949, 841 State v. Dempsey, 88 Wash. App. 918, 947 P.2d

P2d 1154-� 5 617-�� 2[a], 5, 6[b] 489-�� 2[b], 3 P2d 779-� 11[a] 265 (Div. 3 1997)-� 11[a]

WEST VIRGINIA Wagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286-�� 2[b], 3 WISCONSIN State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1-�� 2[b], 10[b] The medical emergency exception will support a warrantless search of a person or personal effects when the person is found in an unconscious or semiconscious condition and the purpose of the search is to discover evidence of identification and other information that might enhance the prospect of administering appropriate medical assistance. However, if the court finds that the facts do not support a medical emergency, the search is not reasonable and any evidence found will not be admissible. For example, in the recent case of People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947 the court held that a warrantless search of the defendant's purse, conducted by the police officer while the defendant was under the care of medical personnel and conscious and coherent, was not based on exigent circumstances and thus was constitutionally unreasonable. Those cases in which the courts addressed the lawfulness of a search of a person or personal effects under the medical exception to the warrant requirement are collected and analyzed in this annotation. I. Preliminary Matters [*1] [*1a]

Introduction Scope

This annotation collects and analyzes state and federal cases dealing with the lawfulness n1 of the search n2 of a person or personal effects n3 under the medical emergency exception n4 to the warrant requirement. To be within the scope of this annotation, the search must have been performed by a police officer or at the direction of a police officer. n5 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n1 This issue in the cases usually involves the admissibility of evidence found as a result of the search, which turns on the reasonableness of the search. n2 As to what constitutes a "search," see, generally, 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures � 8. n3 "Person or personal effects" would include searches of clothing, purse, wallet, briefcase, and the like. This annotation does not include premises searches or searches of vehicles. n4 The medical emergency exception is a variant of the exigent circumstances doctrine. It is sometimes referred to by other terms such as the "emergency aid"

exception, and some courts merely discuss it as an exigent circumstance. n5 For a discussion of the admissibility, in by a search by a private individual, see the regarding the necessity that police obtain a examining, or testing evidence discovered in annotation at 47 ALR4th 501.

a criminal case, of evidence obtained annotation at 36 ALR3d 553; and warrant before taking possession of, a search by a private person, see the

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Readers are cautioned that any constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, court rules, or regulations bearing directly upon this subject are discussed herein, and included in the Jurisdictional Table of Cited Statutes and Cases, only to the extent that they are reflected in the reported cases within the scope of this annotation. To ascertain the current status of these provisions, it is necessary to consult the appropriate constitutional, statutory, court rule, or regulatory compilation. [*1b] Related annotations Search and seizure: reasonable expectation of privacy in tent or campsite. 66 ALR5th 373. Admissibility of evidence discovered in search of defendant's property or residence authorized by defendant's spouse (resident or nonresident)-state cases. 65 ALR5th 407. Propriety of search of nonoccupant visitor's belongings pursuant to warrant issued for another's premises. 51 ALR5th 375. Admissibility of evidence discovered in search of adult defendant's property or residence authorized by defendant's minor child—state cases. 51 ALR5th 425. Search and seizure: lawfulness of demand for driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of insurance pursuant to police stop to assist motorist. 19 ALR5th 884. Admissibility, in criminal case, of physical evidence obtained without consent by surgical removal from person's body. 41 ALR4th 60. Lawfulness of warrantless search of purse or wallet of person arrested or suspected of crime. 29 ALR4th 771. Sufficiency of showing of reasonable belief of danger to officers or others excusing compliance with "knock and announce" requirement-state criminal cases. 17 ALR4th 301. Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding search and seizure issues. 12 ALR4th 318. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle impounded by police. 48 ALR3d 537. Comment Note.-"Fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine excluding evidence derived from information gained in illegal search. 43 ALR3d 385. Violation of federal constitutional rule (Mapp v Ohio) excluding evidence obtained through unreasonable search or seizure, as constituting reversible or harmless error. 30 ALR3d 128. Comment Note.-Federal Constitution as affecting admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure. 84 ALR2d 959. Modern status of rule governing admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. 50 ALR2d 531. Searches and seizures by health officers without warrant. 13 ALR2d 969. Supreme Court's views as to the federal legal aspects of the right of privacy. 43 L Ed 2d 871. [*2] [*2a]

Summary and comment Summary

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit all searches and seizures, but only unreasonable searches and seizures. n6 Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fit within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. These exceptions have been jealously and carefully drawn and the burden falls upon the state to prove that the exigencies of the situation made the course imperative. These exceptions include a search of abandoned property; a search in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; a search, with probable cause, to avoid

destruction of a known seizable item; a search of a movable vehicle; an "inventory" search; a search pursuant to voluntary consent; a "stop and frisk" search; "emergency aid"; and a search incident to an arrest. n7 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n6 See 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures � 2. n7 See Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834. See, generally, 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures �� 35-59. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - The emergency exception appears to have originated in United States v Barone (1964, CA2 NY) 330 F2d 543, cert den 377 US 1004, 12 L Ed 1053, 84 S Ct 1940, in which the court recognized that the right of the police to enter and investigate in an emergency without the accompanying intent to either search or arrest was inherent in the very nature of their duties as peace officers, and derived from the common law. n8 The medical emergency exception will support a warrantless search of a person or personal effects when the person is found in an unconscious or semiconscious condition and the purpose of the search is to discover evidence of identification and other information that might enhance the prospect of administering appropriate medical assistance, and the rationale is that the need to protect life or avoid serious injury to another is paramount to the right of privacy and is thus justified for what would otherwise be an invalid search in the absence of an emergency. n9 Whether such an emergency exists depends on the facts of each case. n10 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n8 See Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834. See also Mascolo, "The emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment," 22 Buffalo L Rev 419 (1972). n9 See People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947. n10 See State v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Where the person being searched was involved in a vehicular accident, courts have found the particular search of the person or personal effects unreasonable when they were being treated by medical professionals at the time of the search, finding no medical emergency under those circumstances (� 3). However, where the vehicular accident victim was not being treated by medical professionals, one court held that the particular search was reasonable and the evidence found admissible, (� 4[a]), while another court held that, even if the search was reasonable because of a need to find medical information, evidence found was not admissible (� 4[b]). Where police found a person who was unconscious and suffering from an unknown ailment, courts have held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects was reasonable based on a need to find identification or medical information in order to diagnose the person's condition or aid in treatment (� 5). Where a person was found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwise unable to provide identification or information regarding his or her condition, some courts have held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects for identification or something which would account for the

defendant's condition was reasonable (� 6[a]), while others held that the particular search was not justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, apparently because the motive for the search was not medical assistance (� 6[b]). Some courts have held that particular warrantless searches of a shooting victim's person or personal effects were justified by a need to determine the victim's identity or other information related to treatment and were therefore reasonable (� 7[a]). However, one court held that continuing to search the victim's person or personal effects after identification was found was not reasonable (� 7[b]). One court has also held that the particular warrantless search of a stabbing victim's person or personal effects was justified by a need to determine the victim's identity or other information related to treatment and was therefore reasonable (� 8). Courts have held that a warrantless search of the person or personal effects to identify a person known to be intoxicated was not justified by the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement (� 9). Where a search was made of the person or personal effects of one the police believed to be the victim of a drug overdose, one court held that the particular warrantless search was reasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers and their obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment (� 10[a]), while another court held that the particular search was not reasonable where it was not motivated by a perceived need to render medical assistance (� 10[b]). Where police took a person into custody because they reasonably believed him in need of immediate care for mental illness, one court held that they were justified in searching him for anything which might be reasonably related to his treatment (� 11[a]). However, another court found that an allegation by the police that their warrantless search of a person, who they were investigating to determine if he was mentally fit to be on duty as a security guard, was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement was not supported by the evidence (� 11[b]). [*2b]

Practice pointers

Cases regarding lawfulness of the search of a person or personal effects under the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement are usually raised on a motion to suppress in a case where the person has been charged with a crime involving possession of the thing that was seized during the search. n11 However, sometimes the person is objecting to the introduction of evidence that links him to another crime. n12 The first consideration of defense counsel in deciding whether to file a motion to suppress is the potential effect of the evidence he is seeking to suppress, so where the essence of the offense is possession of the items seized, defense counsel should make a motion to suppress whenever there is any likelihood of success. n13 Other factors defense counsel should consider include the strength of the other evidence, n14 opportunities it provides for discovery, n15 the danger of making damaging admissions in the course of moving to suppress, n16 the necessity for the accused's testimony, n17 and the need for preserving the suppression question for appeal in the event of a conviction. n18 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n11 See, for example, State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489; and Broadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283. n12 See, for example, Wagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286; and People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492. n13 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 65.

n14 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 64. n15 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 67. n16 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 68. n17 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 69. n18 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 71. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Where defense counsel decides to file a motion to suppress, the motion should be broad and include a request for suppression of all evidence that may have been illegally obtained and is detrimental to the interests of the defendant. n19 Defense counsel should make the motion and accompanying documents brief and sketchy so that counsel will not educate the prosecution and witnesses and so that, as the evidence develops, he may be in a position to vary his theory to conform to the proof. n20 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defense counsel may establish a prima facie case for suppression by the defendant's own testimony, the testimony of third-party witnesses, the testimony of law enforcement officers, or some combination of these. n21 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n19 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 73. n20 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 74. n21 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 77. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - If the motion to suppress is denied, defense counsel must decide if the case should proceed to trial. If introduction of the evidence is likely to convict and the outcome of the case is entirely dependent on the appellate disposition of the suppression questions, it would be futile to spend the time and money necessary for trial, and defense counsel may want to attempt to arrive at a stipulation with the prosecution by which judgment will be rendered on the basis of the evidence introduced at the pretrial hearing. n22 If the case does proceed to trial, a cautious defense counsel will interpose a continuing objection to the introduction of such evidence whenever the prosecution seeks to offer it. n23 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n22 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 110. n23 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence � 114. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - In determining whether a search is justified by the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement, some jurisdictions require that both a subjective and objective test be met. First, the searching officer must actually be motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance; and second, even if the requisite motivation is found to exist, it must be shown that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have thought an emergency existed. n24 However, at least one

court has held that the motive of the officers in performing the search was not relevant where the objective facts showed a medical emergency. n25 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n24 See, for example, State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1 (ovrld on other grounds by State v Weide, 155 Wis 2d 537, 455 NW2d 899); People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947; and State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489. n25 See State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - II. Searches of Victims of Vehicular Accident [*3]

Where person being treated by medical professionals at time of search n26

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects of one who was apparently involved in a vehicular accident was not justified by a medical emergency, and therefore was constitutionally unreasonable, where the person was being treated by medical professionals at the time of the search. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n26 For cases involving treatment of victim by paramedics, see � 4. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - In People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947, the court held that a warrantless search of the defendant's purse, conducted by the police officer while the defendant, who had been involved in a car accident, was under the care of medical personnel and conscious and coherent was not based on exigent circumstances and thus was constitutionally unreasonable. The defendant, charged with possession of a controlled substance, filed a pretrial motion to suppress on the basis that the evidence underlying the charge was seized without a warrant in violation of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. When the police officer arrived at the scene of the car accident, the defendant was conscious and paramedics were at the site. The police officer attempted to speak to the defendant, but paramedics were attending to her, so he did not interrupt. One of the paramedics handed the officer the defendant's purse, but he did not open it and did not attempt to obtain identifying information from the defendant at this time. The defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The officer investigated the scene and then brought the defendant's purse to the hospital where he was informed that she was in the X-ray room and would be there for some time. Rather than attempting to contact the defendant, the officer searched the defendant's purse looking for her driver's license, car registration and proof of insurance in order to complete his accident report. He observed a small zipper bag inside the purse, opened it, and found what appeared to be a "cocaine kit." He then opened a larger bag and found some marijuana and pills. After completing his search of the purse, the officer contacted a narcotics officer who identified the pills as methamphetamine. The court noted that the contents of a purse or wallet are of an extremely personal nature and any warrantless search can be justified only under the exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement, which included emergency situations that pose a threat to the life or safety of the person searched or others. The state relied on the so-called medical emergency variant of the exigent circumstances doctrine to support the search of the purse

at the hospital. The court pointed out that the medical emergency exception will support a warrantless search of a person's purse or wallet where the person is found in an unconscious or semiconscious condition and the purpose of the search is to discover evidence of identity and other information that might enhance the prospect of administering appropriate medical assistance. The court continued that two factors predominate the analysis of warrantless searches and seizures under the medical exception: first, there must be facts which, when objectively analyzed, establish the existence of a real and immediate danger to the life or safety of another; and second, the officer's purpose in conducting the search must be to render aid or assistance to the endangered person. The court concluded that, under the facts of the instant case, the state's reliance on this exception was misplaced, finding that when the officer searched the defendant's purse at the hospital he was not confronted with a situation that posed a threat to the defendant because she was under the care of medical personnel, was conscious and coherent, and fully able to provide information that might be useful in her diagnosis and treatment. In addition, the court found that the evidence showed that the officer's sole purpose in searching the purse was not to obtain information that might possibly have been useful in diagnosing or treating the defendant, but to obtain information needed for his accident report. Where the police officer did not arrive at the hospital until an hour after the accident when hospital personnel were already attending to the defendant, the court in People v Tyler (1991, 5th Dist) 210 Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569 NE2d 240, held that the officer's search of a car accident victim's pants after they had been removed from him at the hospital was not reasonable where the purpose was to determine his identity. In support of its argument that the officer acted reasonably in searching the defendant's pants for his wallet in order to determine his identity, the state cited People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492, � 7[a]. However, the court found that Smith was distinguishable because, in that case, the wallet was taken from the victim at the scene of the incident and here the officer did not have the same need to ascertain the victim's identity or information of value in handling him, such as blood type, possible diabetic condition, or inability to tolerate certain medications. In Bouldin v State (1975) 26 Md App 545, 338 A2d 404, revd on other grounds n27 276 Md 511, 350 A2d 130, the court found that the search of the defendant motorcycle accident victim's clothing was difficult to justify as seeking identity in a medical emergency where the defendant was already hospitalized and being prepared for examination before the search began. The court also noted that the absence of medical rationale was obvious from the police officer's testimony that he went to the hospital in order to arrest the defendant. The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident and was taken to the hospital. When the police officer attempted to ascertain the defendant's identity by radioing the license plate number to the Department of Motor Vehicles, he was informed that those license plates had been stolen. The officer testified that he went to the hospital with a twofold purpose in mind-to check on the defendant's condition and to place him under arrest. When the officer arrived at the hospital, the defendant was unconscious and being prepared for examination. The officer searched the defendant's clothing to find some identification and found glassine bags containing a white powdery substance which was discovered to be heroin. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n27 The court reversed the holding that the search was justified as a lawful search incident to arrest. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Where, at the time of the officer's search of the defendant's tote bag in order to find identification, the defendant, a victim of an apparent automobile accident, was being treated by medical personnel and was beginning to regain consciousness, the court in State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489, held that it was not reasonable for the officer to assume a life-threatening emergency existed so as to justify the warrantless search. The defendant and her son were the occupants of a wrecked automobile found lodged against a dirt embankment in a parking lot at the airport. According to the airport security officer who discovered them, the defendant's lip was bleeding and she was disoriented, as if in shock, and was unable to identify herself or her child. The security officer looked through a wallet found on the floor of the car in an effort to determine the defendant's identity, and found a concealed weapon permit, but no driver's license or photograph. The security officer radioed the sheriff's office for assistance and a deputy sheriff arrived a few minutes later. The deputy sheriff decided to take the defendant to the hospital. Before doing so, he performed a pat-down search for a weapon because of the permit, and found a cocaine sniffer. Then he placed the wallet on top of the tote bag and took her to the hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital, the defendant was taken to the emergency room and her tote bag, containing the wallet, was left at the nurses' station. The deputy sheriff then decided to search the tote bag to get a positive identification of her. He testified that he found a plastic baggie with some leafy material in it right on top of the tote bag, then found the wallet, and lastly found a baggie of phencyclidine (PCP) or angel dust. The nurse who assisted in the search testified that the wallet was found first. After searching the tote bag, the deputy returned to the emergency room and again asked the defendant for her name. By that time she was better oriented and gave him her name. In spite of her motion to suppress, the material discovered in her tote bag was admitted in evidence at her trial and she was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Since the search of the tote bag was conducted without a warrant, the court noted that it must initially determine whether it falls within some exception to the constitutional mandate prohibiting warrantless searches. The court continued that warrantless searches by police officers have been upheld when an emergency situation has been found to have existed, such as where persons were found seriously injured or unconscious and the search had been completed for the express purpose of finding identification, medical alert cards, or the names of persons to call in case of an emergency. The court found that, to come within the medical emergency exception, it must be satisfied both subjectively and objectively that the search was actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance. Applying this test to the facts of the case, the court found that the search was initiated by the deputy and not by the nurse, and at the time the search was undertaken, the defendant was being treated by trained medical personnel and was beginning to regain consciousness, and concluded that it was not reasonable for the deputy to assume a life-threatening emergency existed so as to justify the warrantless search. The court pointed out that the deputy may have subjectively perceived a need to search the tote bag, but it could not be said objectively that a reasonable person would have thought an emergency existed or continued to exist. In Wagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286, the court held the search of the defendant motorcycle accident victim's clothing for identification was reasonable given the circumstances which existed in the hospital emergency room, but rejected the state's contention that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement justified the search. The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident and was taken to the hospital. The investigating police officer went to the hospital in order to complete an accident report and check on the condition of the victims. The officer testified that he found an extremely chaotic emergency room. The defendant was apparently conscious but also intoxicated and in extreme pain, as was his traveling companion. The officer attempted to identify the victims in order to complete his accident report. The person who filled out the hospital

admissions sheet testified that the defendant appeared to be coherent, but she put a question mark next to his name because he appeared uncertain or hesitant about giving it to her. When the officer questioned the defendant as to his identity, he concluded that the defendant either could not answer questions or did not want to answer questions because of the pain he was in. The officer then looked in the pockets of the defendant's pants, which had been put in a box under the bed, and found a gold coin. He later discovered that the coin had been stolen from a murder victim and that the defendant was a suspect. At the hearing to suppress the gold coin and all evidence obtained as a result of the gold coin, the court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pants once he brought them into the emergency room of the hospital, and concluded that the officer acted both reasonably and in good faith when he searched the defendant's pants for identification, in light of the circumstances in the hospital emergency room which frustrated his attempts to identify these accident victims. The court, however, rejected the state's argument that the emergency exception justified the search, finding that the officer's search was very similar to a limited search for identification undertaken to facilitate a noncriminal disposition of a person in police control and that in this situation it is clearly unnecessary to find a reasonable belief of a medical emergency. In this case, the court did not find evidence of the kind of medical emergency required by the medical emergency doctrine where the defendant was already receiving treatment for his injuries. [*4] n28 [*4a]

Where person not being treated by medical professionals at time of search Evidence found held admissible

The court in the following case held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects of one who was apparently involved in a vehicular accident was justified by a medical emergency, and therefore was constitutionally reasonable and evidence found in the search was admissible where the person was not being treated by professional medical personnel at the time of the search. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n28 This section includes cases where the person is being treated by paramedics. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Fact that police officers knew that defendant had been in serious accident and that much blood was inside defendant's vehicle and leading to front door of defendant's trailer, coupled with officers' testimony that they entered trailer because they believed emergency assistance was necessary and, in fact, administered first aid to defendant upon their entry, was sufficient to support warrantless entry of trailer and admissibility of blood sample taken later from defendant. City of Fargo v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176. Where the defendant had been involved in an automobile accident and was only semiconscious and incoherent, the court in Broadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283, held that the officer was making a proper and necessary search for identification, so it was clearly within the "emergency" exception to the search warrant requirement, and the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress and admitting the firearm found in her purse into evidence. As the result of driving the wrong way down a one-way street, the defendant was involved in an automobile accident. An ambulance attendant examined the defendant and determined that she did not need to be transported to the hospital. When the police officer arrived, he immediately talked to the defendant in an effort to

learn her identity, but because she was only semiconscious and incoherent, he was unsuccessful. He then moved the defendant to his police car and placed her in the back seat. Thereafter, he returned to the defendant's car and, in the course of searching the car, found a gun inside her purse. She was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant claimed that the warrantless search did not fit into any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. The court, however, found that one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement was the "emergency doctrine," the rationale of which was that there was a need to act immediately to protect or preserve life or to prevent serious injury. The court noted that under this exception, officers may search a person found unconscious for identification, names of relatives and physicians, and medical history, and that the test on appeal was whether the officer reasonably believed that a warrantless search was justified by an emergency. The court concluded that the state's burden of proof was adequately met here where the record indicated that the defendant was repeatedly asked who she was, but was too incoherent to give an intelligible answer. The court continued that, believing her to be intoxicated, the officer placed her in the back of his car and searched her purse for identification, and that before he initiated the search he was in custody of a nameless, unidentified woman, who was an accident victim, a potential criminal suspect, and the operator of an immobile vehicle that necessarily was going to be towed away. The court also pointed out that the officer was unsure of her physical condition and did not know when, or if, she would become coherent. [*4b]

Evidence found held not admissible

Where the victim of a vehicular accident was not being treated by professional medical personnel at the time of the search, the court in the following case held that even if a warrantless search of the person or personal effects was justified by a medical emergency, evidence found in the search was not admissible in a criminal trial. In State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201, the court held that even if the police officer's search of the accident victim's purse was necessitated by the demands of immediate medical attention, evidence of criminal activity discovered would not be admissible in a criminal trial. When the officer arrived at the accident scene, he found an overturned van and emergency medical technicians providing medical assistance to the defendant, who was lying on the ground. The defendant was only semiconscious and could not provide the officer with pertinent information. A passenger in the defendant's car told the officer the defendant's name and street she lived on, but did not know her middle name, her precise address, her telephone number or birthdate. In order to gather information to assist in the defendant's medical treatment and to complete his accident report, the officer reached into the overturned vehicle and retrieved a purse that he thought might contain the defendant's driver's license. In the purse, he discovered a baggie of marijuana. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse, reasoning that the officer had sufficient information from other sources and, therefore, did not need to search the purse for purposes of medical treatment or to complete his report. The state contended that the seizure was lawful, because opening the purse was authorized as part of the "community caretaking" function, and that when an officer is carrying out that function, his actions are reasonable. The state argued that the officer acted reasonably, given the administrative and medical need for information, and that he lawfully opened the purse and lawfully seized the contraband that was in plain view after the purse was opened. However, the court pointed out that, when presented with situations not directly related to a criminal investigation, police may enter protected areas to render aid or assistance, notwithstanding a lack of statutory authority, but, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, any evidence discovered is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. n29

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n29 But see State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459, � 11[a], where the court held that evidence found in a search of a person detained because he was in need of immediate care or treatment for mental illness was admissible. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - III. Searches of Persons Found Suffering from Unknown Ailment [*5]

Where person found unconscious

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects of one who was found unconscious and suffering from an unknown ailment was reasonable based on a need to find identification or medical information in order to diagnose the person's condition or aid in treatment. Where passersby found the defendant in a disabled car, foaming at the mouth and unable to talk, and a police officer thereafter arranged for the defendant's transportation to a hospital, after which the passersby turned over two locked briefcases and a motel key found in the defendant's car, the court in United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, held that the officer's search of one of the briefcases for identification or other information potentially helpful to hospital personnel in diagnosing and treating the defendant's condition satisfied the medical emergency exception, where he was unconscious at the time of the search, and sums of money taken in a bank robbery and recovered from the briefcase were admissible in evidence against the defendant. The defendant contended that the District Court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized in the two briefcases because it had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On first consideration of this appeal, the court was unable to ascertain from the record the time relationship between the defendant's hospitalization, his treatment there, and his release from the hospital and the happening of the search of the first briefcase. In a hearing, the court found that the defendant was not conscious before 6:25 p.m., and that the police officers entered the defendant's motel room in order to find some identification or something to give to the hospital and to obtain the keys to the briefcases found with the defendant for the same purpose, at approximately 5:15 p.m., and that the first briefcase was opened a few minutes later, at approximately 5:20 p.m. Therefore, the court found it clear that the police not only did not know the defendant had regained consciousness when they entered the room and opened the first briefcase, he in fact had not regained consciousness. The court found the critical problem to be whether the officers who opened the first briefcase, taken from the defendant's car, did so, as they asserted, as a matter of rendering emergency aid to a person in a seizure, or whether this explanation of their search was a pretext, and concluded that their conduct was pursuant to a lawful lifesaving mission. The court noted that there appeared to be an emergency lifesaving exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, citing cases from other circuits on the right to enter a dwelling without a warrant to render emergency aid. While recognizing that there may be cases where police assertions of Good Samaritan motives might, as charged here, be pretextual rather than real, the court agreed that a legitimate life-saving purpose may provide another example of exigent circumstances which excuse failure to follow the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Where the defendant was found unconscious on an airplane and a police officer was asked by medical personnel to look in her purse for identification or medication

to assist in diagnosing her condition, the court in United States v Black (1988, CA6 Ky) 860 F2d 1080, 1988 US App LEXIS 14189, n30 held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, since the defendant was unconscious, had not been conclusively diagnosed, and was still unidentified. Airline personnel who found the victim were unable to revive her and called the paramedics. A police officer also responded to the call. While the paramedic was checking the defendant's vital signs, he asked the officer to check the defendant's purse for any medical information, medication, or identification. The paramedic testified that "[a]n unknown, unconscious person, [is] a life-threatening situation because you don't know what the problem is." When the officer looked in the purse, he found a wallet which contained pieces of identification containing several different names; a bottle containing antibiotics, which he gave to the paramedic; and, in a cigarette case, crystals, which he did not immediately recognize as crack. The defendant and her belongings were then transported to the hospital. The officer accompanied the defendant and was asked by the emergency room nurse to try to find some specific identification of the defendant or at least to locate something that would identify her medical problem. The officer went back to the purse and found what he believed was cocaine. The defendant was subsequently indicted for possession with the intent to distribute crack and cocaine and moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the search of her purse violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. The state claimed that the search was required to deal with a life-threatening emergency, and the court found that it carried its burden. The court determined that it was reasonable for a police officer to search the effects of an unconscious person in an effort to determine the person's identity or any evidence of medical history which might be useful in treatment. The court found that the officer was not motivated by a suspicion of criminal activity when asked by the paramedic to look for identification or medications to assist in a diagnosis of the defendant's condition, and his first search was conducted in an attempt to help in an emergency situation, and the defendant did not contend otherwise. The court also found that the second search was conducted at the request of the emergency room nurse and, under the circumstances, was not unreasonable since the defendant had not been conclusively diagnosed and was still unidentified. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n30 This opinion is not recommended for full-text publication. Sixth Circuit Rule 24 limits citation to specific situations. Please see Rule 24 before citing in a proceeding in a court in the Sixth Circuit. If cited, a copy must be served on other parties and the court. This notice is to be prominently displayed if this decision is reproduced. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - In United States v Haley (1978, CA8 Mo) 581 F2d 723, cert den 439 US 1005, 58 L Ed 2d 681, 99 S Ct 618, the court held that a search of what appeared to be the defendant's briefcase for identification or medical alert cards was reasonable where the officer found the defendant lying in the street, and he reasonably believed him to be in need of medical assistance. The officer found the defendant lying in the street and stopped to investigate and determine what was wrong. He attempted to rouse the man, but was successful in doing so only momentarily. The man gave the officer his name and told him he was not hurt, then lapsed into unconsciousness. The officer did not smell liquor on the man's breath. An individual at the scene told the officer that he believed that the man had left the scene of an accident a few blocks away. The officer then attempted to ascertain the identity of the car and the man. He looked in the man's pants pockets, but was unsuccessful. He then looked into the car and noticed a zippered, leather briefcase in the front seat, took the briefcase out of the car, and opened

it to look for identification. Inside he found several papers identifying the man and a firearm forming the basis of the defendant's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. The court held that the warrantless search of the briefcase was justified by the particular exigent circumstances present in the case. The court noted that the officer was presented with an emergency situation when he observed the defendant lying in the street, and he reasonably believed that the defendant was in need of immediate assistance. The court also pointed out that the defendant's lapse from consciousness did not appear to be attributable to alcohol and the defendant indicated that he was not hurt. Therefore, the court concluded that it was reasonable for the officer to seek identification or medical alert cards which might be of assistance and, when he found none on the defendant's person, it was reasonable to obtain identification from what he believed to be the defendant's briefcase. Where two police officers found the defendant unconscious on a public street and were unable to rouse him, the court in Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250, held that a search of the man to secure identification, if possible, and then to prepare a report for the hospital concerning the sick man was lawful. In the process of searching the defendant, the officers did not find identifying material, but found white powder which appeared to be narcotics. On appeal, the defendant asserted that the narcotics found on his person were illegally seized and should have been suppressed. The court noted that if evidence is discovered by search, its admissibility turns on whether the search was lawful, in other words, reasonable under the circumstances, and that where a reasonable search happens to produce evidence of a crime as a by-product, the fact that it was not so intended was irrelevant. The court continued that a search of one found in an unconscious condition was both legally permissible and highly necessary, because there is a positive need to see if the person is carrying some indication of a medical history, the rapid discovery of which could save his life. The court also pointed out a need to identify persons so found in order to notify friends and relatives. Finally, the court noted that the fact that the cause of the defendant's unconsciousness was not known in no way impaired but enhanced the need and inherent power to search the defendant. Where the defendant was found unconscious and an ambulance driver, who was also a police officer, looked through his pocket in order to find some identification and determine what was wrong with him, the court in People v Gomez (1964, 1st Dist) 229 Cal App 2d 781, 40 Cal Rptr 616, held that the officer acted reasonably under the facts of ths case and did not need to blind himself as to what he discovered while doing so. The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of possession of herion, contending that the heroin was illegally obtained from his person. The defendant was moved by ambulance from a parked car to the emergency hospital. He was unconscious, there was froth on his mouth, and he appeared to be having convulsions. At the hospital, efforts were made to restore the defendant's breathing, which had stopped three or four times. While the doctor and the nurse were engaged in treating the defendant, the ambulance driver went through the defendant's pockets to find out who he was and what might be wrong. After learning the defendant's identity from the contents of his wallet, the officer looked into the defendant's shirt pocket and found a folded paper wrapped in tinfoil which proved to contain herion. The officer showed what he found to the doctor and nurse. Whether this aided them in their treatment was not clear from the record. The defendant later regained consciousness and explained his condition as being caused by two injections of heroin. The officer testified that his purpose in continuing the search after learning the defendant's identity was that, when a person is unconscious, it is necessary to search for a "Medic-Alert" tag or something else indicating what might be wrong. In Perez v State (1974, Tex Crim) 514 SW2d 748, the court held that a search of a

person found in an unconscious condition is necessary and lawful under the emergency or exigent circumstances doctrine, noting that the rapid discovery of a medical history carried on the person might save his life, and there is also a need to identify the person and to determine if the names of relatives, friends, and physicians can be found so they may be notified. The defendant was found, apparently unconscious, by the manager of a motel. The manager was unable to awaken the defendant and, fearing that he might be dying, called the police. The officer attempted to revive the defendant and asked him what was wrong, but he got no response. The officer then noticed things that led him to believe that the defendant had just had a "fix" of narcotics. The officer then asked the defendant his name, but the defendant did not answer. In order to ascertain whether the defendant was carrying any identification, the officer searched his pockets and found a pink balloon containing a brown powder later determined to be heroin. The defendant was placed under arrest. The court held that even if the officer had not observed the drug paraphernalia, giving him probable cause to search the defendant, he would have been called upon to search under the emergency doctrine. See Vargas v State (1976, Tex Crim) 542 SW2d 151, cert den 429 US 1109, 51 L Ed 2d 562, 97 S Ct 1144, where there was no question raised regarding the search for identification conducted in the ambulance upon the unconscious defendant by the police officer, who had responded to a call regarding a sick party at a fire station, but the court noted that if the herion-filled balloon had been discovered during the warrantless search of the defendant in the ambulance, the heroin would have been admissible in evidence because a search would have been justified under the "emergency" or "exigent circumstances" doctrine. The court pointed out that a search of a person found in an unconscious condition was reasonable and necessary for the purposes of identification and possible discovery of a medical history carried on the person. The heroin was discovered after an initial examination of the defendant's clothing by the nurse at the hospital, which produced a pistol, requiring the nurse to call the police. See Tijerina v State (1979, Tex Crim) 578 SW2d 415, where the court held that it was reasonable for the police officer to remove the unconscious defendant from his car based on the need to determine his medical condition, and that, when the officer then determined that the defendant was intoxicated, a search made incident to an arrest was proper and a gun found during this search was admissible. A police officer found the defendant sprawled out on the seat of a car in the early morning hours with his wallet open on the floor and was unable to rouse him. The court believed that it was logical for the officer to conclude that the defendant may have been the victim of an attack, and that the officer's action was proper in removing the defendant from the car under the emergency or exigent circumstances doctrine. The officer testified that his first thought was that the defendant had been robbed or stabbed or something like that. In his attempt to arouse the defendant, he detected an odor of alcohol. After the officer was able to get the defendant to come around a bit, he got him out of the car. The officer found no evidence of injury and determined that the defendant was in a state of intoxication and felt that he might possibly be in some sort of danger or need some protection. The officer arrested the defendant and in frisking him found a gun in his pocket. The defendant argued that because the officer did not determine that he was intoxicated until he removed him from the car, the arrest was without probable cause and that the gun seized in a search incident thereto was the result of an unlawful search. The court noted that prior case law had held that a search of a person found in an unconscious condition was necessary and reasonable, because the rapid discovery of a medical history carried on the person of one found to be unconscious might save his life. In the instant case, the court continued, if the defendant had been the victim of a robbery and had been stabbed or physically harmed, the discovery of the injury by the officer could have resulted in treatment which may have saved his life. The court rejected the

defendant's contention that the action of the officer in removing him from the car constituted an illegal arrest, finding that after the defendant was removed from the vehicle, the officer determined that he was intoxicated and a danger to himself and, hence, the defendant's arrest and the search incident thereto, which resulted in the seizure of the gun, was legal. See State v Hutchison (1990) 56 Wash App 863, 785 P2d 1154, where the court held that although no medical emergency existed, the search of the defendant's clothing in order to determine identity and method of disposition was lawful where the defendant was in danger and in need of aid or assistance. The police were called to investigate a person lying in a parking lot, apparently unconscious. The police attempted to rouse him and lift him to his feet. The defendant staggered about in a stupor so the officer seated him in the back of the patrol car. The officer did not know the cause of the defendant's condition but did not believe the man needed medical attention so did not take him to the hospital. At the time, the officer believed the defendant would be in physical danger if left in the parking lot. The officer attempted to communicate with the defendant but the man was unresponsive to the officer's questions and had to be awakened several times. In an effort to determine whether the defendant carried identification indicating an address where he could be taken or what other disposition could be made of him, the officer conducted a search of his clothing. In the defendant's jacket he found drugs and drug paraphernalia. The state challenged the trial court's findings at the suppression hearing that no medical emergency existed and that the state failed to show a sufficient emergency or exigent circumstances. The court agreed with the trial court's finding that no medical emergency existed, but noted that this did not end the inquiry. The court continued that numerous decisions had recognized that police officers are expected to render aid and assistance on a regular basis to persons who, although perhaps not in need of immediate professional medical treatment, are in danger and in need of help, and that searches performed as a part of providing such aid, if reasonable and in good faith, are generally allowed. The court found that, in the instant case, it was undisputed that at the time of the search, the defendant was in need of aid and assistance because the officer had a reasonable and legitimate concern that he would be in danger if abandoned in the parking lot, and that the officer did not search him for criminal or investigatory purposes but in an effort to determine what should be done with him. The court concluded that the officer's community caretaking duties required that he render aid to the defendant who, if allowed to remain lying in the parking lot or staggering about in an impaired condition, would have been in danger of injury or death, and the only reasonable option for the officer was to ascertain the defendant's identity and any information that would aid in his disposition. The courts in the following cases as well held that the particular warrantless search of a person, or personal effects of one who was found unconscious and suffering from an unknown ailment, was reasonable based on a need to find identification or medical information in order to diagnose the person's condition or aid in treatment, where-the police officer found the defendant lying on the restroom floor, checked him to see if he had any bumps on his head or any reason why he had passed out, then patted down his pockets and found a paper sack containing some pills and a syringe, even though the officer did not state the reason of his search as for identification or evidence of medical condition, finding that the objective facts were what gave rise to the right and duty of the police in a situation such as this and it would be unrealistic to require that the officer first state his motive for the search. State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435. -the defendant was brought unconscious to the police headquarters by two unidentified men and, while he was still unconscious, was searched by the police

who discovered marijuana on his person, finding that in this case there was nothing to indicate to the police that the defendant had violated the law, but the police officers had an unconscious man on their hands, who was obviously sick or injured, and it then became absolutely necessary for the officers to search the defendant to discover his identity, next of kin, and possible information which would indicate that he was suffering some chronic disease. State v Agent (1968) 101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846. -the defendant was found unconscious in a motel room and the police searched his jacket and bag looking for identification, noting that the Fourth Amendment only denounces warrantless searches that are unreasonable and that whether a given search is reasonable depends upon the facts, circumstances and exigencies confronting the officers conducting the search, and finding the exigencies confronting the officers in this case similar to those confronting the police in State v Agent (1968) 101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846, this section. State v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617. [*6] Where person found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent, or otherwise unable to provide identification or information regarding condition [*6a]

Search held reasonable

Where a person was found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwise unable to provide identification or information regarding his or her condition, the courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects for identification or something which would account for the defendant's condition was reasonable. In Evans v State (1978, Fla App D3) 364 So 2d 93, cert den (Fla) 373 So 2d 457, the court rejected the defendant's contention that a search of her purse was illegal where the officer was unable to communicate with her and searched the purse for something which would delineate a medical disability that could account for her condition. A highway patrolman saw the defendant pull her car off the road and stop. He approached the vehicle, but was unable to gain her attention, although he observed that her eyes were open. The officer then gained entry to the car and, with the defendant unable to communicate, examined her purse to inspect her driver's license. After calling the rescue squad, a search was made to determine the cause of her condition, and the officer found cocaine and charged her with its possession. The court found that the search was not unreasonable in the exigent circumstances. Where police officers answered a radio call that a man was "down" in the hallway of a hotel and found him lying on the floor, disoriented and incoherent, the court in People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139, held that a search of his person for identification did not constitute a violation of the defendant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. When the officers found the defendant, there was no indication of alcohol on his breath nor any evidence of drinking, but he was very disoriented and incoherent. They informed him that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. When he failed to answer questions concerning his identity, what he was doing there, where he lived, and whether he had a wallet, the officers then searched him, seeking some identification, and in the process found several packets of marijuana in his back pocket. The defendant argued that the search was illegal because it exceeded the scope of a search incident to arrest, which was limited to a search for weapons and to prevent concealment of the fruits of the crime for which he was being arrested. The court did not agree, noting that the officers were summoned to investigate the circumstances involving a distressed person and they found him in a stupor, apparently not caused by alcohol, totally

disoriented and unable to answer questions regarding his identity or condition. The court continued that, for all the officers knew, the defendant may have been a diabetic in shock or a distressed cardiac patient, so they were faced with an emergency situation where the welfare of the individual was at stake. The court concluded that under the circumstances of the case, the search of the defendant and the seizure of narcotics from his person were reasonable and lawful and not a violation of his constitutional rights. [*6b]

Search held not reasonable

Where the person was semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwise unable to provide identification or information regarding his or her condition, the courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects was not justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, apparently because the motive for the search was not medical assistance. In Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834, the court held that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement did not apply where the officer went to the scene for the purpose of conducting a narcotics investigation, the defendant was not totally unconscious and was accompanied by a companion who was somewhat responsive, and the officer admitted that several motives, including crime scene detection, prompted the search of the defendant's wallet. The officer was called to a bar by another officer who had discovered marijuana in a car that the defendant and his companion had driven off the road. Upon arriving at the bar, the officer found the defendant and his companion in a seemingly intoxicated state, but there were no alcoholic containers near the men and no smell of alcohol in their vicinity. After giving them Miranda warnings, the officer asked the defendant for identification. When the defendant did not respond, his companion reached into the defendant's pocket and produced his wallet. While looking for identification in the wallet, the officer discovered a folded aluminum foil packet which contained cocaine. The court noted that, because of the defendant's condition at the time of the search, it was possible to argue that the officer's conduct was designed to provide crucial information in the rendition of emergency aid, but determined that the facts in this case were distinguishable from cases from other jurisdictions where the emergency aid exception had been held to apply. n31 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n31 See United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, � 5; Vauss United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250, � 5; People v Gonzales 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, � 8; People v Smith (1970) 47 161, 265 NE2d 139, � 6[a]; State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435, � 5; and v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617, � 5.

v (1960, Ill 2d State

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Where there was no evidence introduced to suggest that the defendant, who was unresponsive when asked by the police to produce identification, was in need of police assistance for medical reasons, the court in People v Rossi (1981, 2d Dist) 102 Ill App 3d 1069, 58 Ill Dec 291, 430 NE2d 233, held that there were no exigent circumstances such as life-saving actions authorizing a search as an exception to the general rule against warrantless searches. The police officer asked the defendant and his companion to pull their car over because one of the tail lights was out. The companion told the officer that the car belonged to the defendant. When asked for identification, the defendant was incoherent. The officer then removed the defendant's wallet to search it for identification and found a

controlled substance. As one justification for the search, the state relied upon cases which authorized searches of incoherent persons for identification where there was no probable cause to arrest but the defendant's physical condition suggested a potentially serious illness requiring attention. n32 However, the court pointed out that neither officer suggested at any time that they had concern for the defendant's well-being except that he might fall on the rutted shoulder of the road upon emerging from the vehicle, and this concern hardly would be sufficient to warrant the intrusion to the person required by a search for a wallet nor did the officers attribute the search to that reason. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n32 See People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139, � 6[a]; People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492, � 7[a]; and People v Gonzales (1960, 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, � 8. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Where the police officer found the defendant in a semiconscious condition, was unable to communicate with her, and looked inside the defendant's jacket pocket and found an opaque bottle marked "Tylenol," n33 the court in State v Underwood (April 28, 1982, Ohio App, 12th Dist, Clermont Co) Slip Op No. 1113 (available on LEXIS(R)), held that the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement was not applicable here because the contents of the bottle were retained by the police and not used to determine medical treatment. The state contended that the warrantless search of the defendant's jacket fell within the scope of the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement, urging the court to adopt this exception, citing United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, � 5, and State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1, � 10[b]. The court indicated that the trial court was willing to accept such an exception but found that the facts were inapposite to the state's argument. According to the trial court, the search of the jacket could be within the exception to gain information with regard to medicine, and finding the bottle of Tylenol would be justified under Dunavan, allowing the bottle to be opened because of a medical emergency, but found that such was not the case here where the contents of the bottle were retained by the police and not used to determine medical treatment. The trial court noted that the result would have been different had the contents been delivered to the life squad for possible treatment purposes either with the life squad itself, or at the hospital. The court concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by the record, where the officer kept the bottle and, when the defendant was transported to the hospital, the officer did not make anyone aware of the nature of the contents of the bottle. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n33 Although the opinion does not say, it is assumed that the bottle contained some sort of illicit drug and the defendant was charged with its possession. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - IV. Other Searches [*7] [*7a]

Shooting victims In general

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of a shooting victim's person or personal effects was justified by a need to determine

the victim's identity or other information related to treatment and was therefore reasonable. Where the defendant's wallet had been taken at the scene of the shooting by an investigating officer who had found the defendant seriously wounded and in a semiconscious condition, the court in People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492, held that the removal of the wallet from his person by the officer and the subsequent examination of the wallet at the police station did not infringe upon the defendant's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendant was found guilty of murdering his wife's paramour and appealed on the ground that his conviction was based on evidence obtained through an illegal search. In the defendant's wallet, the police found a note addressed to the police stating his intention to kill his wife's lover. The note was discovered at the police station when officers examined and inventoried the personal effects of the defendant following the gunfight between him and the victim. While holding that the question regarding the admissibility of this evidence was waived because it was not presented at trial, the court commented that it believed that the conduct of the investigating officer, who secured the defendant's wallet and gun at the scene of the shooting, was reasonable and an appropriate police measure. The defendant was found at the scene of the shooting semiconscious and bleeding from gunshot wounds. The court pointed out that a wallet typically contains cards or other material identifying the owner, and that one reason for this is to permit the owner's identification in the event of illness or accident, and it is common for identifying material to also contain the identification of a person to be notified in case of an emergency. The court found that the taking of the wallet of the semiconscious man was not unreasonable conduct for the officer, and the fact that it was apparently not necessary to use the wallet to identify him did not disturb the reasonableness of its being taken. The court also found that securing the wallet under the circumstances was reasonable and that it would not be unreasonable to consider that the wallet might provide information of value in the handling of the wounded man, such as blood type, intolerance to medication, and the like. The court also noted that, considering the pressing circumstances which confronted the officer, including the necessity of having the defendant brought to a hospital as soon as possible, it was understandable that he did not examine and inventory the wallet at the scene, but that this was done at the station house in the presence of a policeman identified as the inventory officer. Finally, the court found that the discovery of the note, which was addressed to the police, did not convert the inventory process into an illegal search. n34 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n34 The instant case was distinguished in People v Tyler (1991, 5th Dist) 210 Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569 NE2d 240, � 3, where the wallet was taken from the victim at the hospital, so the officers did not have the same need to search it to determine the victim's identity or information needed in handling him. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - In Floyd v State (1975) 24 Md App 363, 330 A2d 677, the court held that a search of a gunshot victim's clothing for identification was both legally permissible and highly necessary, so that contraband inadvertently discovered was admissible in evidence. The police officer responded to a radio message to investigate a shooting and found the defendant in a prone position on the floor, bleeding profusely from a wound in the right arm, two in the right leg and three in the left leg. While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, the officer asked the defendant his name and received no response. At the hospital, the defendant's clothes were cut from his body so that he could receive treatment. Upon being

informed that the defendant was stable, the officer asked him if he wanted to talk. The defendant responded that he was shot and had no time to talk. Believing he had a possible homicide on his hands, the officer searched the defendant's clothes for identification as well as for evidence that might be useful in a homicide investigation. In the defendant's pants pockets, he found what proved to be heroin. The court held that the search of the clothing was permissible because, when the officer was unable to obtain the defendant's identity, he not only had a right but a duty to look in his clothing for the purpose of endeavoring to determine the shooting victim's identity. In response to the defendant's claim that a "hold-up" note, found when a search was made of his person in an effort to establish his identity so that the consent of relatives to an emergency operation might be sought, should have been excluded as the fruit of an illegal arrest, the court in State v Patrick (1970) 255 SC 130, 177 SE2d 545, held that it would be pointless to inquire whether the defendant was under arrest because the search was to establish his identity and was incident to hospital procedures rather than to an arrest. The defendant was shot in an attempt to rob a liquor store. When the police found the defendant, they promptly took him to the hospital emergency room where the search was made. The court noted that, in this emergency, the defendant was treated no differently than a helpless accident victim. n35 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n35 While it is unclear from the opinion who performed the search, it appears to have been performed by the police officers. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - [*7b]

After identification found

The court in the following case held that, while the search of a shooting victim's person or personal effects for identification was reasonable, it was not reasonable to continue the search after finding identification, concluding that the sole purpose was to find evidence of criminal activity. In Shepherd v State (1977, Fla App D1) 343 So 2d 1349, cert den (Fla) 352 So 2d 175, the court held that while a search of the shooting victim's wallet for identification was reasonable, after finding identification, it was not reasonable to search a plastic bag found in the wallet. The defendant was taken to the hospital emergency room and a deputy sheriff was dispatched to the hospital to investigate the shooting. The medical staff had not identified the victim, so the deputy searched his billfold for identification. In the currency section he found a small bag, but could not see the contents. After talking to the defendant, the deputy searched the billfold and the bag and found phencyclidine (PCP). The court found that the second search of the billfold was for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence of criminal activity. [*8]

Stabbing victims

The court in the following case held the particular warrantless search of a stabbing victim's person or personal effects was justified by a need to determine the victim's identity or other information related to treatment and was therefore reasonable. Where the defendant was found either unconscious or in severe shock and unable to answer questions, with a ghastly and possibly fatal knife wound, the court in People v Gonzales (1960, 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, held that a

search of the defendant's clothing for identification at the hospital was reasonable, and the police officer was not required to close his eyes to contraband simply because it was not connected with the initial purpose of the search. When the police discovered the defendant, an ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, his clothes were cut away and gone through for purposes of identification. Four marijuana cigarettes were found. The doctor, two nurses, and a police officer were present during the search made by an attendant, apparently at the request of the police officer. The ambulance driver testified that such a search was routine procedure for identification of injured people "in shock" in emergency cases. The defendant contended that the narcotics were discovered during an unlawful search and therefore were erroneously admitted as evidence. The court found the circumstances warranted the police officer to clearly establish the stabbing victim's identity. [*9]

Persons known to be intoxicated

The courts in the following cases held that a warrantless search of the person or personal effects to identify a person known to be intoxicated was not justified by the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Police officer who took defendant into protective custody based on defendant's apparent intoxication had reasonable cause to search defendant, during course of which search officer found illegal drugs, where officer had been told that defendant had also taken four or five pills and, when asked in ambulance what pills he had taken, defendant answered that they were in his pocket. State v Hutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027. In State v Nelson (March 21, 1985, Kan App) Slip Op No. 57,049 (available on LEXIS(R)), the court held that the emergency doctrine did not justify a search of the defendant's bag where the police officer testified that he knew the unconscious defendant was intoxicated and was looking for identification. The officer observed a car in a parking lot with the interior light on and the engine running. A female appeared to be sitting behind the wheel. When the officer returned 5 or 10 minutes later, the car was still there. When he approached the car, he found the defendant slumped over the wheel. He rapped on the glass, but she did not move, so he opened the door and tried to rouse her. He smelled alcohol on her breath, and testified that he did not fear a heart attack, but just thought she passed out from drinking too much. He testified that his next thought was to find her identification so he could take her home. He began to look through the car and found a bag on the floor of the back seat. When he opened the bag, he found drug paraphernalia and cocaine. The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and moved to suppress the evidence found in the bag. The trial court found that the warrantless search of the bag was illegal and that the seized fruits of the search were inadmissible. The state relied on the so-called emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which the court noted applied when the purpose of the search was not the gathering of evidence, but the protection and aid of people in distress. The court pointed out that there were three criteria to be met in determining whether a warrantless search of the bag fell within the emergency exception. The first, the court continued, was an objective test: did the officer have reasonable grounds to believe there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for assistance; second, a subjective test: was the officer primarily motivated by an intent to arrest or to seize evidence, or to render aid; and third, a scope test: was there a sound basis to associate the emergency with the area to be searched, in this case, the bag. The court found that the officer knew at the time of the search that the defendant was not medically endangered, but was only intoxicated from the use of alcohol, so the record did not support the state's assertion that the officer subjectively or objectively believed he was faced with a medical emergency. The court also noted that the Oregon Supreme Court

in State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143, cert den 457 US 1111, 73 L Ed 2d 1321, 102 S Ct 2915, this section, had held that ordinary alcohol intoxication was not a medical emergency justifying an immediate search of an intoxicated person's purse. See City of Fargo v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176, � 4[a]. In State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143, cert den 457 US 1111, 73 L Ed 2d 1321, 102 S Ct 2915, the court held that it was not reasonable for the police in a noncriminal and nonemergency situation to search the property of an intoxicated person for identification at the time the person is taken into custody for transportation to a treatment or holding facility. A police officer found the defendant illegally parked and she appeared to be intoxicated. His attempts to determine her identity were unsuccessful. Another officer arrived at the scene, handcuffed the defendant, and placed her in the back of one of the patrol cars to take her either to a detox or booking facility. They did not intend to charge her with a violation of any law. After the defendant was placed in the patrol car, the officer went to her vehicle and found a purse on the ground. The purse was closed and he opened it without consent for the sole purpose of finding out who she was. When he first opened the purse, he found a plastic bag containing white cross pills, and, on further search, discovered additional pills and a wallet identifying the defendant. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and moved to suppress on the ground that the evidence was unreasonably seized without a warrant and in violation of federal and state constitutions, statutes, and case law. The court noted that a person who is intoxicated in a public place may be taken home or to a treatment facility by the police, or, if there is no appropriate treatment facility, may be taken to a city or county jail where the person may be held until no longer intoxicated. The court further noted that neither party contended that the officer was conducting a criminal investigation at the time he opened the purse and that the facts of this case did not present the officer with a medical emergency justifying an immediate search. The court concluded that an individual's expectation of privacy in a purse was probably greater than in any other property except the clothing worn by the person, and it did not think that it was necessary for the police officer to know the name of the person that he was going to transport to the treatment or holding facility. [*10] [*10a]

Victims of apparent drug overdose Search held reasonable

The court in the following case held that the particular warrantless search of the person or personal effects of the apparent victim of a drug overdose was reasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers and their obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment. See State v Hutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027, � 9. In State v Auman (1986, Minn App) 386 NW2d 818, the court held that evidence discovered by police officers during the course of a warrantless search for identification of a drug overdose victim was admissible under the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment. The police officers responded to a call that somebody had overdosed and found the defendant acting irrationally. The defendant told them that someone had put drugs in his drink and he needed help. The officers felt that the defendant was overdosing on drugs. The officers called for an ambulance and then tried to learn the defendant's identity. They explained to the defendant that they had to determine his identity so they could notify family and friends of his condition and assist the ambulance crew when they arrived. The

defendant gave the officers permission to remove his wallet to look for identification. An officer found what he believed to be the defendant's wallet, but which turned out to be an eyeglass case. Inside the case, the officer found drug paraphernalia. The officer testified that he did not expect to find identification in the case and did not know what he would find. The trial court held that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied here because the officers searched the defendant with a reasonable belief that they were faced with a medical emergency, but went on to conclude that the search was improperly extended to the eyeglass case. The court, however, found that the search was reasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers and their obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment. The court found that, based on Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250, � 5, and United States v Haley (1978, CA8 Mo) 581 F2d 723, cert den 439 US 1005, 58 L Ed 2d 681, 99 S Ct 618, � 5, had the defendant been completely unconscious rather than in a drug-induced stupor, a complete search of him for identification would have been reasonable, and did not believe that the reasonableness of this good-faith search by concerned police officers turned on such inconsequential factual dissimilarities, noting that if the police had not opened the eyeglass case until after they determined that the defendant had no identification anywhere else, a search of the "closed container" would have been completely justified. [*10b]

Search held not reasonable

The court in the following case held that a warrantless search of the person or personal effects of the apparent victim of a drug overdose was not reasonable where it was not motivated by a perceived need to render medical assistance. In State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1 (ovrld on other grounds n36 by State v Weide, 155 Wis 2d 537, 455 NW2d 899), the court held that the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement could not justify a warrantless search of the defendant's purse where the police officer testified that the reason for searching the purse was to inventory the contents of the defendant's car. The defendant injected himself with heroin and was found unconscious in a motel room which had been rented by someone else. The defendant regained consciousness when the manager left to call the police, put the heroin and syringes into his purse, put the purse in the trunk of his car and returned to the motel room. When the police arrived, they arrested him for trespassing in the motel. The officer testified that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and was drooling from the mouth and wearing "mussed" clothes. Because the defendant was believed to be a trespasser, the motel manager asked that his car be removed from the parking lot. The officer then went out to make an inventory search of the car. In the trunk, he found a purse containing heroin. The court of appeals upheld the warrantless search under the emergency exception on the ground that a reasonable man "could believe" that the defendant had overdosed on a drug, and might be in danger of losing his life. The court of appeals did not find it fatal that the officer did not conduct the search because he thought a medical emergency existed, so long as, viewed objectively, the circumstances justified that action. The court found that unless the search or intrusion was motivated by the perceived need to act in the face of an emergency or exigency, the emergency doctrine is not applicable and will not justify the search, reasoning that conditioning the availability of the emergency doctrine exception on the officer's motivation is mandated by the doctrine's rationale that the preservation of human life is paramount to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court set forth the test for a valid emergency warrantless search under the emergency doctrine as requiring a two-step analysis: first, the search is invalid unless the searching officer is actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance; and second, even though the requisite motivation is found to exist, until it can be found that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have

thought an emergency existed, the search is invalid. The court concluded that both the subjective and objective tests must be met. - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n36 Overruled not on the medical emergency exception, but on that part of the opinion addressing whether the search of a purse in an automobile was justified as an inventory search. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - [*11] [*11a]

Victims of apparent mental illness Search held reasonable

The court in the following case held that where police took a person into custody because they reasonably believed him in need of immediate care for mental illness, they were justified in searching him for anything which might be reasonably related to his treatment. Where the defendant stipulated that he was suffering an emotional condition and needed help because of his emotional condition at the time of the search, the court in State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459, held that the police, when lawfully taking a person into custody under ORS 426.215, which authorized taking into custody any person who the officer reasonably believed was dangerous to himself or any other person and who he had reasonable cause to believe was in need of immediate care or treatment for mental illness, had the right to search that person, not only for such articles as may be lawfully seized following a valid arrest, but for such further objects, including pills or other apparent medication, as may appear reasonably related to diagnosing or treating his apparent mental or physical condition. While transporting the defendant to the hospital, the police searched him and discovered marijuana. The court noted that the apparent purpose of the statute was to secure immediate care and treatment of the person taken into custody under it, and that seizure from his person of articles reasonably related to the accomplishment of this purpose was proper. The court continued that the fact that under such rule an object seized may be a narcotic or other contraband did not affect the right to seize it, pointing out that the prompt identification of the substance seized may well be the key to effective emergency treatment. The court concluded that the fact that the article proved to be contraband did not render the seizure invalid, nor was the state, having validly seized it, required to close its eyes to the fact that its possession may also be a crime. n37 - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - n37 But see State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201, � 4[b], where the court held that, even if the police officer's search of the accident victim's purse was necessitated by the demands of immediate medical attention, evidence of criminal activity discovered is not admissible in a criminal trial under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. - - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - Police officer responding to call about fight between defendant juvenile and her mother had reasonable cause to believe medical emergency existed, and narcotics found in defendant's purse were properly admitted in defendant's prosecution for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, where defendant had been observed to be emotionally unstable, her parents had said that she had threatened suicide and was

carrying knives, and officer searched defendant's purse to see if it contained knives. State v Lowrimore (1992) 67 Wash App 949, 841 P2d 779. Since defendant was in acutely paranoid state when he was seized for mental health evaluation, police officer reasonably searched for weapons before exposing himself and others to close contact with defendant; moreover, officer was not bound to limit his search to weapons, and had obligation to identify and remove anything with which defendant might harm himself and others, including street drugs. West's RCWA 71.05.150(4)(b). State v. Dempsey, 88 Wash. App. 918, 947 P.2d 265 (Div. 3 1997). [*11b]

Search held not reasonable

The court in the following case held that the allegation by the police that their warrantless search of a person, who they were investigating to determine if he was mentally fit to be on duty as a security guard, was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement was not supported by the evidence. Where the police officers, in response to a telephone call made to a security agency's dispatcher by a department store security guard, went to the store at the manager's request to ascertain whether the guard was fit to be on duty, the court in State v Hampton (1982) 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744, held that the officer's frisk of the guard was not justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. The dispatcher received a call from a person who purported to be the store's guard and who stated that he was armed with mace, and that, if any of the mannequins moved, he was going to mace them. Five police officers were dispatched to the store and the manager requested that they locate the guard to ascertain whether he was fit to be on duty. When they found the guard, he was not acting in an unusual manner and did not appear to be unstable. The guard was then patted down by two of the officers who discovered marijuana and hashish. In response to the guard's motion to suppress, the state, as a last resort, suggested that the frisk was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which applies when a person is in need of immediate aid. The court found that this suggestion was not supported by the evidence which showed that the sole explanation given by the police for the contact was to ascertain whether the guard was fit to be on duty, and the officers made no inquiry of the guard about his mental or medical condition. The court also pointed out that the state conceded that when the officers contacted the guard there was no apparent emergency. [*12] [*12a]

Domestic violence Search held reasonable

Officer's entry and subsequent warrantless search of defendants' home was justified; officer had received report of domestic violence in home, caller told officer that she and female defendant had been hit by male defendant, there were signs of recent disturbance at home, and female defendant refused to allow officer to enter home, which could have indicated that female defendant was hiding male defendant in home, possibly against her will. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997), review denied, (Sept. 23, 1997). [*12b]

Search held unreasonable

Report of domestic violence does not per se establish exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry into private residence; each case must be decided upon its particular facts and circumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997), review denied, (Sept. 23,

1997). [*index] INDEX Accident report, completing, �� 3, 4[b] Aircraft, � 5 Alcohol, �� 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9 Allergies to medications, �� 3, 7[a] Angel dust, � 3 Arrest, intent to, � 3 Automobile accidents, �� 3, 4 Bank robbery, � 5 Blood type, �� 3, 7[a] Car accidents, �� 3, 4 "Closed container", � 10[a] Cocaine, �� 3, 5, 6, 9 Coherence or incoherence, �� 3, 4[a], 6 Comment and summary, � 2 Concealed weapons, �� 3, 5 Consciousness, �� 3-7[a] Controlled substances, �� 3 et seq. Convulsions, � 5 Crack cocaine, � 5 Danger to life or safety, � 3 Diabetic condition, �� 3, 6[a] Disorderly conduct, � 6[a] Disorientation, �� 3, 6 Drug overdose, � 10 Drugs and narcotics, �� 3 et seq. Drunkenness, �� 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9 Emergency operation, relatives' consent, � 7[a] Eyeglass case, � 10[a] Family and relatives, �� 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a] Firearms, �� 4[a], 5 Friends, notification of, �� 5, 10[a] Froth on mouth, � 5 "Good Samaritan" motives, � 5 Hashish, � 11[b] Heroin, �� 3, 5, 7[a], 10[b] History, medical, �� 4[a], 5 Hold-up note, � 7[a] Homicide, � 7[a] Hotels and motels, �� 5, 6[a], 10[b] Incoherence or coherence, �� 3, 4[a], 6 Intent or purpose for search, �� 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a] Intolerance to certain medications, �� 3, 7[a] Intoxicating liquors, �� 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9 Introduction to annotation, � 1 Inventory search of car, � 10[b] Knife wound, � 8 Liquor, �� 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9 Marijuana, �� 3, 4[b]-6, 8, 11 Medical alert cards, �� 3, 5 Medical history, �� 4[a], 5 Medical professionals, treatment by, �� 3-5 Medication, search for, � 11[a] Mental illness, � 11

Money taken in bank robbery, � 5 Motels and hotels, �� 5, 6[a], 10[b] Motivation or purpose for search, �� 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a] Motorcycle accident, � 3 Motor vehicle accidents, �� 3, 4 Murder, � 7[a] Note, hold-up, � 7[a] Note addressed to police, � 7[a] Notification of other persons, �� 3, 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a] One-way street, � 4[a] Overdose of drugs, � 10 Pain, � 3 Paramedics, treatment by, �� 3-5 PCP, � 3 Permit, concealed weapon, � 3 Phencyclidine, � 7[b] Possession of controlled substance, �� 3 et seq. Possession of firearm by convicted felon, � 4[a] Practice pointers, � 2[b] Preliminary matters, �� 1, 2 Purpose or motivation for search, �� 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a] Related annotations, � 1[b] Relatives, �� 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a] Report, accident, completing, �� 3, 4[b] Restroom floor, � 5 Robbery, �� 5, 7[a] Scope of annotation, � 1[a] Security guard's fitness, � 11[b] Seizures, � 5 Semi-consciousness, �� 4, 6, 7[a] Shooting victims, � 7 Stabbing victims, � 8 Summary and comment, � 2 Treatment by medical professionals, �� 3-5 Unconsciousness, � 5 Unknown ailment, �� 5, 6 Vehicular accidents, �� 3, 4 Weapons, �� 3, 4[a], 5

Source: All Sources : Federal Legal - U.S. : Federal Court Cases and ALR, Combined Courts Terms: paramedic or emergency medical technician and law review (Edit Search) View: Full Date/Time: Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 5:12 PM EST

About LEXIS-NEXIS | Terms and Conditions

Copyright � 2000 LEXIS-NEXIS Group.

All rights reserved.