I Community Caretaking

• Library: Illinois Decisions on Search and Seizure (2017 Ed.)

I. Community Caretaking

Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (HELD: The police pursuit of "community caretaking functions" may justify motor vehicle searches and, as such, are not constitutionally unreasonable. Here, the defendant, a police officer, was arrested for drunk driving and the car was removed to a police lot. During the night, police searched the trunk of the car looking for his service revolver for the purpose of protecting public safety. The search resulted in the police seizing objects stained with a murder victim's blood that were used against defendant in a subsequent murder trial. This was a lawful vehicle impoundment carried out for the purpose of safeguarding valuables, preventing vandalism and promoting public safety and, therefore, it was constitutional).

People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 940 N.E.2d 1100 (2010) (An officer observed the defendant's car pulled over on the side of the road with its lights off. The officer turned his police vehicle around and pulled up behind the parked car for the purpose offering assistance. By this time the defendant had activated his emergency blinkers. When the officer pulled up behind the defendant's parked vehicle, he activated his emergency lights because, the officer testified, it was dark on the road, so the lights were intended for his own protection. The officer approached the vehicle. The defendant was in the driver's seat and his wife was the front seat passenger. The officer shined a flashlight into the defendant's car and did not observe weapons or liquor. The officer asked the defendant "if everything was okay." The defendant rolled down the driver's window slightly and responded that he was waiting for a friend. The officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and asked the defendant "how much he had to drink." The defendant responded "three." The officer asked the defendant to take some field sobriety tests to ensure that he could safely drive home. The defendant failed the field sobriety tests. Although the defendant stated that he believed that he could not refuse to perform the tests, he refused to perform the last test the officer sought to administer, a Breathalyzer test. The officer never threatened him in any manner throughout their encounter. Although the officer did not initially observe liquor when he shined his flashlight into the defendant's car, the police report stated that the defendant "had open alcohol in vehicle." The defendant was arrested for DUI and later filed a motion to suppress. The trial court granted the defendant's motion. The state appealed. The appellate court reversed. The defendant petitioned for leave to appeal. HELD: The officer's act in approaching the defendant's vehicle that was pulled over on the shoulder of a busy highway at night, to offer any aid required under the circumstances, fell within the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment. The community caretaking doctrine is analytically distinct from consensual police-citizen encounters. The defendant's assumed seizure was unrelated to the investigation of any crime and was reasonable because it was undertaken to protect public safety. It was also objectively reasonable for the officer to activate his emergency lights, not only for his own safety, but also for the safety of the defendant and passing traffic. Finally, when the defendant rolled down his window and opened his mouth to speak, the officer acquired the reasonable suspicion necessary to further detain and investigate the defendant).

People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 857 N.E.2d 187 (2006) (HELD: There are three tiers of police-citizen encounters: (1) arrests, which must be supported by probable cause; (2) brief investigative detentions, or "Terry stops," which must be supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) consensual encounters that involve no coercion or detention and thus do not implicate Fourth Amendment interests. Courts have often inappropriately described these consensual encounters as "community caretaking." "Community caretaking" occurs when police are performing some task unrelated to the investigation of a crime—an encounter that has nothing to do with whether or not a search is consensual. It functions as an exception to the warrant requirement. For example, in Cady v. Dombrowski, when a police officer was involved in an accident and other police officers searched his car for a weapon, thinking that all officers had to carry their service revolvers at all times, and found bloody items that could implicate the officer in a murder, the court found the search was undertaken to protect the public in general and had no connection to a criminal investigation and was community caretaking. Thus, cases describing "community caretaking" as consensual encounters or "third tier" encounters should no longer be followed on that specific point).

People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill. 2d 220, 789 N.E.2d 260 (2003) (requesting identification from a passenger during a traffic stop does not qualify as "community caretaking" in that the State had failed to explain how this type of request "served a public-safety function").

People v. Murray, 137 Ill. 2d 382, 560 N.E.2d 309 (1990) (when officers performed "community caretaking" function by approaching defendant who was sleeping in his vehicle parked on side of road, awoke defendant, asked him to produce identification and exit car, no seizure until after defendant exited car, whereupon officer spotted gun in plain view) (citing numerous cases following Mendenhall).

People v. Mains, 2012 IL App (2d) 110262, 969 N.E.2d 926 (Police on patrol over a four-lane road with a 35 mph speed limit observed a sport-utility vehicle traveling at a very slow speed, and with its hazard lights on. The police followed the car as it turned in to a privately owned driveway. The police observed defendant as he exited the car, opened the hood, and began to examine the engine. The police then turned on the emergency lights of their squad car, approached the defendant, and asked for his name and date of birth. Upon obtaining defendant's information, they learned that his driver's license was revoked and then arrested him. At trial, defendant moved to quash his arrest, arguing his use of hazard lights was legal because his vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, and that the police had no reasonable suspicion to stop him. The State argued that either reasonable suspicion existed to conduct the investigatory stop or, alternatively, that the police were validly exercising their community caretaking function. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress, holding that there were no grounds for a Terry stop because defendant was legally using his hazard lights because he...