WI Court of Appeals rules fear for drunk teens allows a no-warrant search.

Byline: Staff Wisconsin Law Journal

Where police found an extremely intoxicated minor in an apartment bathroom, and reasonably believed additional persons in the bedroom might be dangerously intoxicated, their warrantless entry was justified by the community caretaker exception, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held last week.

In 1999, the West Allis Police Department received a 911 call regarding a fight at an apartment building. Outside the building, the officers encountered Deidre Foster, who was underage and had been drinking.

Foster permitted the officers to enter the apartment. In the living room, the officers found two teenagers who had been drinking, but were not highly intoxicated. A substantial number of empty liquor bottles were strewn in the room, however.

In the bathroom, the officers found a highly intoxicated young man, who had been vomiting and was unable to walk without assistance.

A bedroom belonging to Shane M. Ferguson was locked from the inside, and the police believed that other highly intoxicated persons might be in the room and need assistance.

One of the teenagers in the living room volunteered that three persons were in the room. After approximately 30 minutes, the police jimmied the door, and found persons in the bed.

Thinking that someone could be hidden in a closet or passed out, one of the officers opened the closet door and discovered marijuana plants.

Ferguson was charged with the manufacture of marijuana.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Dennis P. Moroney denied Ferguson's motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers were acting within their community caretaker function.

Ferguson pleaded guilty, and appealed. A divided District I (Milwaukee) Court of Appeals affirmed in a decision by Judge Patricia S. Curley.

Judge Ralph Adam Fine wrote a concurring opinion, and Judge Charles B. Schudson dissented.

The majority held that the officers were acting within the community caretaker function, as defined in State v. Anderson, 142 Wis.2d 162, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct.App.1987), rev'd on other grounds, 155 Wis.2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).

The appeals court concluded that the evidence established that the only purpose in entering the bedroom and the closet was to confirm that no highly intoxicated person was hiding there.

In addition, the appeals court found that the public need outweighed the invasion of Ferguson's privacy interests, given the complaint of a fight and the presence of four intoxicated teenagers...