Knock-knock, “Open up it’s the Poli… Housekeeping!”

BACKGROUND

The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There are some limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, like “exigent circumstances,” where a reasonable law enforcement officer would believe a warrantless search and seizure is necessary—for example to prevent physical harm, destruction of evidence, or a suspect’s escape. The Supreme Court, in Cady v. Dombrowski (1973), recognized a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, which acknowledges that police officers carry out “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” When established, the exception was designed only for warrantless searches of motor vehicles to aid those in distress, combat actual hazards, prevent potential hazards from materializing and provide services to preserve and protect public safety. United States v. Rodriguez-Morales (1st Cir. 1991). Since Cady, courts have expanded the “community caretaking” exception.

THE ISSUE

Does the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extend beyond the context of motor vehicles to the home?

THE SPLIT

The Third, Seventh, Ninth Circuits, and likely the Tenth Circuit have held that the “community caretaking” exception does not extend to the home. The First, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have extended the “community caretaking” exception beyond the motor vehicle context, justifying, under certain circumstances, a warrantless entry into an individual’s home.

The Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits – Does Not Extend to the Home

The Ninth Circuit established its view on how far the exception established in Cady applies in United States v. Erickson(1993). In Erickson, a police officer investigating a suspected burglary, pulled back plastic from an open window in a basement, revealing numerous marijuana plants. The officer then proceeded to obtain a warrant and arrest the homeowner. The court held that even if the officer was performing a community caretaking function at the time, that alone cannot justify the warrantless search prior to obtaining the warrant. The court concluded “Cady clearly turned on the ‘constitutional difference’ between searching a house and searching an automobile.”

The Third Circuit in Ray v. Township of Warren (2010) similarly concluded that the “community caretaking” exception established in Cady “expressly distinguished automobile searches from searches of a home.” In Ray, police officers, fearing that a child in a home may be in danger, entered the home without a warrant. The court held that the “community caretaking” exception does not override the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the home.

The Seventh Circuit, in Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee (2014) also declined to extend the “community caretaking” exception to the home. Here, police officers forcibly entered the home of a potentially suicidal individual to effectuate an emergency detention for a mental health evaluation. Officers detained the homeowner, performed a protective sweep of the home, and seized a firearm that was inside a locked CD case. Guided by its earlier decision in United States v. Pichany (1982), the Seventh Circuit decided that the exception “extended only to automobiles temporarily in police custody.” The court, however, held that the entry and subsequent sweep were justified by the “exigent circumstances” exception. The search of the CD case was unlawful because the gun was not in plain view and the search was based on a hunch.

The Tenth Circuit is less clear, but appears to agree.  In  United States v. Bute (1994), which concerned a commercial building and garage, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is “applicable only in cases involving automobile searches.” Thus, the Tenth Circuit most likely would not have extended the exception to the home had one been the subject of the case.

Sixth Circuit holdings are mixed. The Sixth Circuit in United States v. Rohrig (1996) recognized that warrantless entry into the home may be permissible when police officers are acting as community caretakers to stop a significant noise nuisance. The question remained as to whether this is permissible under the “exigent circumstances” or “community caretaking” exception. However, in United States v. Williams (2003), the Sixth Circuit concluded that Rohrig did not extend the “community caretaking” exception into the home, stating “we doubt that community caretaking will generally justify warrantless entries into private homes.”

The First, Fifth, and Eighth CircuitsExtends to the Home

The Eighth Circuit in United States v. Quezada (2006) did not exactly conclude that the “community caretaking” exception extends to the home, but that “a police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” This standard is more like a modified exigent circumstances test, which lowers the threshold for exigency when the officer is acting as a community caretaker.

The Sixth Circuit appears to agree with the Eighth. In United States v. Rohrig (1996), the Sixth Circuit recognized that warrantless entry into the home may be permissible when police officers are acting as community caretakers to stop a significant noise nuisance. The question remained as to whether this is permissible under the “exigent circumstances” or “community caretaking” exception. However, in United States v. Williams (2003), the Sixth Circuit concluded that Rohrigdid not extend the “community caretaking” exception into the home, stating “we doubt that community caretaking will generally justify warrantless entries into private homes.”

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. York (1990) extended the “community caretaking” exception to the home. Here, the guests of a home feared for their safety, requesting the assistance of deputies so they could collect their belongings and vacate. The deputies entered without a warrant, and later contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) about firearms seen in plain view. The court applied a reasonable foreseeability standard in determining whether a search/seizure is lawful. The court concluded that the community caretaking function of the police here was reasonably foreseeable.

The First Circuit in Caniglia v. Strom (2020) similarly extended the “community caretaking” exception to the home, but instead applied a three-part test. Here, after a domestic dispute, police believed it was reasonable to seize the appellant homeowner’s firearms, fearing that he could be in danger should the guns remain in the home. The court held that the core purpose of the “community caretaking” exception should not be limited to the motor vehicle context, and under the right circumstances may be extended to the home. The court determined that for the “community caretaking” exception to be lawful the court must consider (1) if there is an objectively reasonable basis for believing the individual is suicidal or otherwise poses an imminent risk of harm to himself or others; (2) if there is an objectively reasonable basis for thinking that the individual may use firearms seized in the immediate future for harming himself or others; and (3) if the entry into the home is appropriate when “tailored to the seizure of firearms in furtherance of police officers’ community caretaking responsibilities.”

These approaches are to some degree inconsistent, applying different tests and examining different conditions to determine if warrantless entry into the home is justified under the “community caretaking” doctrine. What they do show, however, is that under the right circumstances, such entry may be justified.

LOOKING FORWARD

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Caniglia v. Strom on November 20, 2020. Not only will this case provide clarity to state and federal law enforcement on the extent to which police may intrude into the home, but this case may also shine a light on how the new Court will decide individual liberty issues going forward. An evolution of the “community caretaking” exception may be viewed by some as a blank check to police to evade the warrant requirement in order to serve the community’s interest. Others may argue that the “community caretaking” exception is faithful to the Fourth Amendment because it gives “police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention, [which] should not be limited to the motor vehicle context.” While some cases find that the “community caretaking” exception is limited solely to the motor vehicle context, others have allowed warrantless entry in contexts that are neither homes nor cars. For further reading, see Stop Hammering Fourth Amendment Rights: Reshaping the Community Caretaking Exception with the Physical Intrusion Standard, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 123 (2013).

Agree to Disagree: Defining Submission to Police Authority

Issue

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against unwarranted searches and seizures, which begs the question—what exactly constitutes a seizure? In California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court held that a “seizure” requires either physical force or submission to police authority. In the wake of this decision, circuit courts have struggled to define the phrase, “submission to police authority,” resulting in a split of authority. The emergent view in the Courts of Appeals, although admittedly uneven within the circuits, is that when a suspect does nearly anything more than pausing briefly, including any significant verbal engagement with the officer, that action is strong evidence of submission.” United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011). Some courts have adopted this rather broad interpretation of the term, imparting a low standard for submission. Other courts have adopted a narrow view, requiring additional conduct to meet the standard.

The issue of defining submission is incredibly significant because of its impact on other aspects of a case. For example, whether or not a defendant is deemed to have submitted to police authority can determine what evidence may be presented at trial, which can significantly influence the outcome of a case. The Fourth Amendment serves to protect against unwarranted invasions of privacy by requiring probable cause. The Fourth Amendment “prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is enforced through the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011).

The Split

The following circuits have adopted the view that brief compliance followed by flight does not constitute submission.

  • Second Circuit: In United States v. Huertas (2d Cir. 2017), the court held that, in dealing with the police, conduct that amounts to evasion cannot be considered submission.
  • Third Circuit: In direct contradiction with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, the court in United States v. Valentine (3d Cir. 2000) held that a brief pause does not make for a submission, and therefore the defendant in this case was not seized within the Fourth Amendment meaning.
  • Ninth Circuit: In United States v. Hernandez (9th Cir. 1994), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was “seized” because he briefly submitted to the police officer’s show of authority before fleeing. The court here requires a discernible showing of compliance to constitute submission:

“We decline to adopt a rule whereby momentary hesitation and direct eye contact prior to flight constitute submission to a show of authority. Such a rule would encourage suspects to flee after the slightest contact with an officer in order to discard evidence, and yet still maintain Fourth Amendment protections.”

The following circuits have adopted the view that brief compliance followed by flight does constitute submission.

  • First Circuit: In United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011), the court held that once a defendant responds to questions posed by the police, he or she has submitted to police authority.
  • Tenth Circuit: In United States v. Morgan (10th Cir. 1991), the court held that even the slightest form of compliance, in this case, a momentary hesitation, is enough to constitute submission. The court explains its reasoning as follows:

“Here, the intrusion on Mr. Morgan in regard to the initial attempted questioning by Officer Eubanks and the subsequent exchange between the two was minimal. However, since Officer Eubanks had followed the car in which Defendant was a passenger for several blocks with his red lights flashing; since Officer Eubanks exited from a marked police car, in uniform, and asked the Defendant to hold up; and since Defendant, at least momentarily, yielded to the Officer’s apparent show of authority, we find Mr. Morgan was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during the initial portion of the encounter.”

  • D.C. Circuit: In United States v. Brodie (D.C. Cir. 2014), the court ruled that when a defendant complies with an officer’s orders by engaging in overt acts, such as putting one’s hands on the car, the defendant has submitted to police authority.

Looking Forward

Although the Supreme Court expressly outlined the requirements for a “seizure” in California v. Hodari D. (1991), it still left some questions unanswered—circuit courts were tasked with the responsibility of defining “submission to police authority,” and conflicting rulings resulted. Branden Huertas submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in December 2017, in hopes of appealing the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Huertas (2017). In the petition, Huertas discusses the split among the lower courts and urges the Supreme Court to review the issue. In his petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Huertas notes: “The conflict is widely recognized by courts and commentators. It also is deeply entrenched; the courts on either side of the split have acknowledged the contrary reasoning of their peers and have had multiple opportunities to reconsider their positions, but the conflict has persisted. Thus, only this Court can restore uniformity on this important question of Fourth Amendment law.” For further reading, see the petition for writ of certiorari: Huertas v. United States.

Bill of Rights protections for all — or maybe just for some: Are non-citizens protected?

Background

In contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ use of the words “person” and “accused,” the First, Second and Fourth Amendments’ text protects certain rights of “the people.” The Fifth and Sixth Amendments prescribe certain rights of individuals in criminal proceedings, while the First, Second, and Fourth provide rights to the public at large. This distinction affects who is protected by these amendments.

Who are “the people” protected by the First, Second and Fourth Amendments? An obvious starting point would be citizens of the United States. But what about permanent resident aliens and refugees residing in the US? What about aliens living in the US without a legal immigration status? Those on a temporary stay visa? Or other classes that may attempt to claim the right? The Supreme Court purported to answer these questions in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). It held that the use of “people” in the Fourth Amendment, as well as in the First and Second Amendments, refers to “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with [the United States] to be considered part of that community.” The problem then is determining who is part of this national community. Who is considered to have sufficient connection with the United States such that their rights are protected by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments?

Issue

The Supreme Court has not further clarified who falls under the umbrella of “the people,” and whether the class of “people” is the same in the First, Second and Fourth Amendments. The Court, instead, has left it to lower courts to wrestle with what determines if an individual is part of the class for asserting a constitutional right.  As a result, a difficult question courts have grappled with is whether aliens unlawfully residing in the United States are part of “the people.” With over twelve million such aliens currently residing in the United States, there is a need for a definite answer on what constitutional protections they possess. The Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez declined to decide this issue because “such a claim [was not] squarely before” it. The Court did, however, suggest that an alien who is in the United States voluntarily and has accepted “some societal obligations” may be considered part of “the people.”

The Split

There is a split between the Fifth and the Seventh Circuit on the issue in relation to the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United-States v. Portillo-Munoz (2011) held that an alien unlawfully residing in the United States is not a member of “the people” and therefore not given the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Armando Portillo-Munoz had acquired a gun to protect his employer’s chickens from coyotes.  He had been voluntarily present, although unlawfully, in the United States. He was working a steady job, paying rent for his home, and financially supporting his girlfriend and daughter. Yet, the court denied him protection under the Second Amendment and emphasized a distinction between aliens in the United States lawfully and those in the United States unlawfully, even those with substantial connections to the United States. The Eight Circuit in United States v. Flores (2011) and the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Carpio-Leon (2012) have taken the same approach.

The dissent in Portillo-Munoz worried about the implications of the majority’s holding not just for the Second Amendment, but for the First and Fourth Amendments as well. The dissent argued that:

There are countless persons throughout Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, who, like Portillo-Munoz, work for employers, pay rent to landlords, and support their loved ones, but are unlawfully residing in the United States. The majority’s reasoning renders them vulnerable — to governmental intrusions on their homes and persons, as well as interference with their rights to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances — with no recourse.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision came in United States v. Meza-Rodriguez (2015). Mariano Meza-Rodriguez was brought to the United States as a young child and had been residing unlawfully in the country since that time. The court held that an alien unlawfully residing in the United States had the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It emphasized Meza-Rodriguez’s plainly substantial connections to the United States having lived in the country for several years. Despite its holding on this issue, the court upheld a statute prohibiting aliens such as Meza-Rodriguez from possessing firearms and ammunitions because “the right to bear arms is not unlimited” and the ban on the possession of firearms by such aliens “is substantially related to the statute’s general objectives.” Ultimately, the Seventh Circuits disagreement with the Fifth Circuit was not essential to the holding of the case.

While there is not much consideration on the issue with regard to the First Amendment, several circuits have provided Fourth Amendment protections to aliens unlawfully residing in the United States and none have definitively denied the protection. The Fifth Circuit opined in Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzalez (2006) that “cases from [the Fifth Circuit] state unequivocally that aliens are entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.” More recently, during immigration proceedings against a putative alien, the Ninth Circuit stated that in such proceedings it allows for the “suppression of any evidence seized in connection with a Fourth Amendment violation that is egregious.” Armas-Barranzuela v. Holder (9th Cir. 2014). The First Circuit follows a similar approach. Garcia-Aguilar v. Lynch (1st Cir. 2015).

Looking Forward

It is difficult to say when there will be an end to the Supreme Court’s exercise in constitutional avoidance on the issue. In Hernandez v. Mesa (2017), the Court declined to address the related issue of whether a Mexican national shot at the border of the United States and Mexico could claim Fourth Amendment rights because “it is sensitive and may have consequences that are far reaching.” Something to keep an eye on is congressional action on immigration and the potential impact on the status of aliens unlawfully residing in the United States as part of “the people.” However, the legislative landscape is even more fraught with uncertainty than the judicial landscape.

Further Reading:

Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Sometimes You’re in, Sometimes You’re out: Undocumented Immigrants and the Fifth Circuit’s Definition of “The People” in United States v. Portillo-Muñoz, 53 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 75 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol53/iss6/7

Who Let the Dogs Out? Sniffing Out the Fourth Amendment

Background

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In Katz v. United States, the Fourth Amendment was expanded to protect an individual’s right to privacy. Since then, a two-prong test was implemented in Smith v. Maryland to determine if the Fourth Amendment was applicable. Fourth Amendment rights are granted if:

  1. a person “has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” AND
  2. society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

Now, how do we apply the Fourth Amendment to tenants who live in apartment buildings with common areas?

The Split

Five circuits have held that tenants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of their apartments. The circuits reason that the common areas of apartments are open to people beyond the control of the tenants. This includes delivery people, repair services, and visitors of other tenants.

The Sixth Circuit is the only circuit that holds it is reasonable for tenants to expect privacy in the common areas of their apartments. The Sixth Circuit agrees that people beyond the tenants control will enter the common area, but there is an actual expectation of privacy from the general public or trespassers.

“I thought this article was going to be about dogs. I only read this for the dogs. Where are the dogs?”

The Seventh Circuit is one of the five circuits that held that tenants do not have a reasonable right to privacy in common areas of their apartments United States v. Concepcion.

However, the Seventh Circuit held in a recent decision, United States v. Whitaker, that the use of a drug sniffing dog in a common hallway, lead to a tenant’s door, is a ‘search’. The Seventh Circuit cited Justice Kagan’s concurrence in Florida v. Jardines. A drug sniffing dog is considered to be a super sensitive instrument that has the ability to detect objects and activities that are “not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and requires a warrant.”

The Seventh Circuit was very careful to define that the tenant in Whitaker did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area, but held that a drug-sniffing dog comparable to a sensitive device is not a reasonable expectation for the tenant. Here, a drug sniffing dog resulted in an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Looking Forward

The Fourth Amendment strives to protect the privacy interests of individuals against illegal searches and seizures. The true spilt comes from a lack of clarity in terms of what is considered a reasonable expectation. Until there is clarity regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Circuit Courts will just be chasing their own tails.