Help! I Need Somebody (or Do I?): A Discussion of Community Caretaking and 'Assistance Seizures' Under Iowa Law

• Author: John W. Sturgis VII
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2014; B.A., The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2011
• Pages: 1841-1873

1841

Help! I Need Somebody (or Do I?): A

Discussion of Community Caretaking and

“Assistance Seizures” Under Iowa Law

John W. Sturgis VII



ABSTRACT: Police officers often engage in activity that extends beyond

their role as criminal investigators. Whether helping with a flat tire or

providing directions, police officers serve as “community caretakers” by

providing aid to individuals and the general public. Some police community

caretaking activities, however, are more invasive than others and constitute

searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Predominantly, state

courts evaluate the reasonableness of these activities under the community

caretaking doctrine. The formulation and application of this doctrine is far

from uniform. In State v. Kurth, the Iowa Supreme Court suggested its

willingness to address the community caretaking doctrine under article I,

section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, which is identical to the Fourth

Amendment in content. This Note argues that the court should reevaluate

its treatment of a specific type of community caretaking activity, the

“assistance seizure,” which occurs when an officer stops a vehicle (therefore

“seizing” it) for the purpose of providing aid. This Note proposes two

modifications to Iowa’s existing jurisprudence for determining the

reasonableness of assistance seizures. First, the court should adopt a

requirement that an officer act with subjective good faith in providing aid,

and that his actions be objectively reasonable. Second, it should adopt the

view that seizures performed to help the subject of the seizure, as opposed to

the general public, are presumptively unreasonable.

 J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2014; B.A., The University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2011. To my parents, friends, and Kelsey.

1842 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99:1841

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1843

II. COMMUNITY CARETAKING: INCEPTION AND EVOLUTION .................... 1848

A. ENTER COMMUNITY CARETAKING: CADY V. DOMBROWSKI .............. 1848

B. DEFINING REASONABLENESS IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY

CARETAKING: BALANCING TESTS AND EMERGENCY LIMITATIONS ..... 1849

1. State v. Anderson: Balancing to Derive Reasonableness ...... 1850

2. People v. Mitchell: Limiting Community Caretaking to

Emergency Situations .......................................................... 1852

III. ANALYZING COMMUNITY CARETAKING: ASSISTANCE SEIZURES ............ 1854

A. SORTING COMMUNITY CARETAKING ACTIVITIES: IDENTIFYING

THIRD- AND FIRST-PARTY ASSISTANCE SEIZURES .............................. 1854

B. CURRENT IOWA LAW REGARDING COMMUNITY CARETAKING:

A FOCUS ON ASSISTANCE SEIZURES .................................................. 1856

1. Kurth and Crawford: Adoption of the Anderson Test ........... 1857

2. Special Concurrence: An Open Question Regarding

Assistance Seizures Under the Iowa Constitution .............. 1861

IV. CRITICISMS OF THE MITCHELL AND ANDERSON TESTS .......................... 1862

A. EVALUATION OF THE MITCHELL TEST ............................................ 1863

B. EVALUATION OF THE ANDERSON TEST ............................................ 1864

1. Fourth Amendment Seizure ................................................ 1864

2. Bona Fide Community Caretaker Activity .......................... 1865

3. Balancing Individual and Governmental Interests ............ 1868

a. Evaluation of Provo City v. Warden ............................... 1868

b. Adherence to the First- and Third-Party Distinction ............ 1869

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 1873

2014] HELP! I NEED SOMEBODY (OR DO I?) 1843

I. INTRODUCTION

“My independence seems to vanish in the haze.”

—The Beatles1

Butterbaugh—the devout follower of Bacchus, the local drunkard—is

back to his old tricks. Consider the following:2 In the wee hours of the

morning, police received a call from a woman in a disconcerted state. The

source of her anxiety, it seemed, was Butterbaugh. Somewhat frantically, she

explained that Butterbaugh had taken some pills at her apartment and

passed out. Now, several hours later, he had “come to” and was shouting and

throwing his body about aggressively. Fleshy impacts and the occasional

bellow could be heard in the background.

Butterbaugh found the phone conversation incomprehensible. In

colloquial terms, he was “dazed and confused.” He did not know where he

was, what he was doing, or whom he was doing it with. He wanted—no, he

needed—a bastion of rationality. “A police officer should take me home,”

Butterbaugh requested to anyone listening (he had forgotten about the

woman on the phone). Instead, and against his better judgment,

Butterbaugh left the apartment and got into a dark Ford pickup.

As one might expect, this was not the first time Butterbaugh caused

such a ruckus. In fact, Officer Ellis had dealt with Butterbaugh more times

than he could remember. A wry smile formed on his lips as he listened to

the report from dispatch, remembering some of the more amusing

incidents. As far as Ellis knew, Butterbaugh was not a troublemaker—he was

simply a man keen on finding trouble.

En route to the caller’s apartment, Ellis noticed a vehicle matching the

description of the one allegedly driven by Butterbaugh. The vehicle was

complying with traffic laws and dispatch had not indicated to Ellis that

Butterbaugh had committed a crime. Ellis swirled the police cruiser’s

overhead lights and stopped the vehicle. As Ellis approached the driver’s

side window, he scanned the occupants of the truck with his flashlight.

Butterbaugh was riding shotgun. Officer Ellis did not know the driver, and

the driver, Crawford, did not know the officer. Ellis explained that he

received a call about Butterbaugh being in trouble and that he performed

the stop to ensure everything was all right. “Sit tight while I radio dispatch,”

Ellis said.

Crawford did not like this command. Perhaps he did not like police

officers, or perhaps he wanted to explain himself. Whatever the case,

Crawford exited the vehicle and approached Ellis. Crawford started speaking

1. THE BEATLES, Help!, on HELP! (EMI Studios 1965).

2. State v. Crawford, 659 N.W.2d 537, 53940 (Iowa 2003), serves as the factual basis for

this thought experiment, with which the author has taken dramatic liberties.