Wilson v. State

975A.2d877 WILSON, Eugene Jr. Francis Maryland. STATE Term, 91, Sept. 2007. No. Maryland. Appeals of

Court of July 2009. DeSimone, Jr., Marc A. Public (Nancy Asst. Defender S. Forster, Defender, Baltimore), brief, Public on for petition- er/cross-respondent. Graeff, Gansler, F.

Kathryn Atty. (Douglas Grill Asst. Gen. Gen., Baltimore), brief, for Atty. respondent/cross-petition- er. BELL, C.J., RAKER,* HARRELL,

Argued before BATTAGLIA, GREENE, (Retired, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, DALE R. specially assigned) and CATHELL specially assigned), JJ.

RAKER, Judge.

In criminal appeal, petitioner this we consider whether was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United Constitution. We shall hold that officer’s States in petitioner seizure unlawful arrest and violation of the Fourth to the Amendment United States Constitution. the trial court his motion to Accordingly, denying erred suppress resulting evidence from his unlawful seizure. * J., retired, Raker, participated hearing now in the and conference of this Court; being pursu- while an active member of after case this recalled Constitution, IV, 3A, participated ant to the Article Section she also adoption opinion. the decision and of this

I. the Wilson, by indicted was petitioner, Francis Eugene оf second charges on Washington County for Jury Grand arrest, a law enforcement assault, disarming resisting degree He officer, disorderly conduct. marijuana, of and possession all the he convicted of jury before a and was to trial proceeded He officer. a law enforcement disarming for charges, except three on the years of of imprisonment sentenced to a term was year impris- term of one a consecutive resisting charge, arrest of a concurrent term marijuana charge, on the onment charge. disorderly for the conduct sixty days imprisonment Court, motion to suppress filed a petitioner In the Circuit police. parties conducted the the search and seizure part court could rule on the motion as that the trial agreed on the motion. hearing to hold a separate the trial rather than the jury, Zimmerer testified before the After officer police and, argument after on jury, trial court excused the motion, As suppress. on the motion to did Court ruled testimony up the officer’s Appeals, we shall focus on Special on jury the court excused the and ruled point until when motion to suppress. that 5:00 a.m. approximately Zimmerer testified at Officer Hagerstown, while on routine in February patrol on car, something in he saw in the Maryland, an unmarked object bag tarp He was a trash roadway. thought emergency blown into the and he activated his roadway, had As he his he noticed that lights. emergency lights activated in the In object actually petitioner lying roadway. was van petitioner stepped up to the front of a response lights, officer, to the went onto the right located one lane over westbound, and started in the same direction walking sidewalk Zimmerer then as the unmarked car. Officer slowed down, on, left his to the curb. lights pulled up Zimmerer, walking past

Petitioner continued Officer exited his and called to point petition- which the officer vehicle if okay.” Although er because “he wanted to see he was car, in an he was Zimmerer was unmarked Officer dressed in full and his police badge displayed. uniform Petitioner did not respond appeared to officer “to be picking his The officer noticed some up pace.” abrasions petitioner’s grabbed petitioner face and knuckles. He his coat, curb, sat him down on the and began talking to him. name, The officer testified that he “tried to find out his ask him, him wrong what was with tried to find where out he lived “just at.” In response, petitioner sat there with a blank that, stare.” Zimmerer Officer testified based upon petition- mannerisms, er’s he although did not know what was wrong he petitioner, thought with that he was under the “possibly influence of a controlled dangerous peti- substance.” He told going tioner that he was to take him to the and that hospital he would have to be handcuffed before he was placed police cruiser. He testified that it was department policy to handcuff to in a everyone prior being put police cruiser. put petitioner’s Officer Zimmerer then hand behind right his back to the handcuffs on him. At place point, petitionеr that began to struggle.

The trial jury court then dismissed the permitted defense counsel the to cross-examine the opportunity officer. arrest, Although he maintained that not petitioner was under the officer that was not free to agreed petitioner leave. The court then heard on the argument suppress, motion to that, denied the motion. The given court determined the circumstances, the officer had a right petitioner to accost to see if anything wrong was and that “he had a to do that right because he reasonable building suspicion.” was articulable The court stated as follows: time,

“And not at that perhaps maybe but once he contacted defendant, injuries the I think saw on his face and hands knuckles, started more information gathering that amiss, something seriously was asked the defendant his name, questions. just asked other The defendant stared after he him sit blankly certainly had down. So this Officer had reasonable articulable to believe that some- suspicion defendant, thing going was on with the either a crimе was being committed because the defendant was under he couldn’t alcohol because not perhaps drugs, influence of or help needed injured and it, was that the defendant smell type some having was assistance, the defendant that to togo he needed for which problem or physical mental detain, to do some- right officer had a hospital. So in order actual arrest intrusive than an that was less thing committed, been had being was if a crime to determine if he need- to determine committed, identity the defendant’s assistance, community and there is a or help ed where ..., have been cases like there here. It’s function in a hearing screams have said that courts appellate anything see if to run in there to right have a building, they being or a crime was need of assistance was in anyone actions, the defendant, of his because Here the committed. him in the middle of seeing injuries, observations killed there, gotten could have the defendant just lying road observing not coming along in time a vehicle at that point over him. So running late and him it was too until a crime had perhaps that suspicion articulable Officer had committed, committed, that the defendant being was been in fact or that help, the defendant needed injured, him, assault- that the defendant was either observing after issue, the influence of ed, or was under having a medical ..., him was a detaining perfect- him into drugs. taking So him, telling in time. And point do at that ly thing valid valid perfectly was also taking you hospital,’ ‘I’m Terry type stop for a of there was a basis either because him to take to or there was a basis and detention cause, to believe certainly was cause because there hospital an illness or a having injury, that the defendant that he was condition, was so under the influence medical others in the future.” injure himself or going to potentially resumed, the trial suppress, the motion to The court denied on the motion to to be considered facts not and additional The heard that jury. jury were to presented suppress to attempts place the offiсer’s to resist continued petitioner a pepper spray, officer used and that the him in handcuffs and gun petitioner, a taser stun officer used back-up arrested, petitioner was ultimately taken to the and hospital, jail. then jury The heard also that while petitioner was at the being processed station he booking requested bathroom, go to the attempted where he of a dispose baggie marijuana. of jury petitioner guilty assault, found of degree second arrest,

resisting marijuana, of possession con- disorderly indicated, duct. As the court petitioner sentenced to four years of incarceration.

Petitioner noted a timely appeal to the of Special Court conviction, Appeals. Affirming judgment of the intermedi- ate appellate court held that petitioner was detained properly in the exercise of their community caretaking State, function. 176 Md.App. Wilson 932 A.2d 739 The court noted that the police caretaking function “permits of private searches рroperty by police would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment where the have initiated search, crime, not to investigate but to ‘aid persons apparent need assistance’ or to protect property.” Id. at 13-14, Alexander, 932 A.2d at 743 (quoting State v. 258, 269, (1998)). Md.App. A.2d The question not courts, decided Maryland appellate observed, the court is whether the function beyond extends searches to of persons. seizures Id. at A.2d 743. The interme- appellate basis, diate court held that there is no in logic or for policy, drawing a distinction between searches and seizures community because, for caretaking purposes, the same policy both—protection underlies of citizens from likely physical harm. Id.

We granted Wilson’s for writ petition of certiorari to answer the following question:

“Did all of the evidence guilt adduced against petitioner flow from a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against officer, unreasonable seizure where a police even lacking ‍​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‍reasonable suspicion activity, criminal approached peti- uniform, tioner in full with weapon badge displayed, activated; emergency lights grabbed arm petitioner by

425 him, that he behind, petitioner informed interrogated from car, squad in the rear of a removed from the scene would be him?” upon to handcuffs sought place and then (2007).1 State, 352, 936 A.2d 850 402 Md. Wilson v.

II. a motion to In the trial court’s denial of reviewing favorable to light the evidence in the most suppress, we review State, 388, 403, A.2d v. 399 Md. the State. Owens (2007). factual unless accept findings, court’s We erroneous, of reasonableness question but the ultimate clearly Amendment or Article of a search or seizure under Fourth conclusion Rights legal Declaration of is Maryland 26 of State, 349, 358, 920 that we review de novo. Lewis v. 398 Md. (2007). propriety review of the A.2d Our based the evidence ruling ordinarily upon court’s ultimate is case, hearing, at the the instant presented suppression related to the on the evidence by agreement parties, State, 398 legality of the search or seizure. Williamson 489, 500, Md. 921 A.2d First, arguments.2

Petitioner two he presents arguеs his warrantless arrest was without cause to believe probable granted cross-petition, presented 1. We the State’s conditional which following question: subsequent “Did Wilson's assault on several officers and his drugs intervening events abandonment constitute that attenuated any alleged taint initial from his detention?” Wilson, judge 402 Md. 936 A.2d 850. Because the trial denied evidence, petitioner’s suppress motion to the State did not have an need, argument opportunity, present or to its related alternative to intervening trial court. The issue factors attenuation to the argued developed question not below and we will not consider the record; but, below, reversing judgment we are this because argument any present State is the trial court in further free proceedings. 2. Because the Petitioner has not asserted a Fourteenth Amendment treatment, interesting liberty right interest in the to refuse medical opportunity opine, which we have not had the we will issue about Redrup, not address it in this case. See Paul C. When Law Enforcement

that he was in criminal and he engaged activity, consequently, was to resist the officer’s to handcuffs privileged attempt place on him. is that he argument Petitioner’s was arrested when him, arm, Zimmerer him the approached grabbed by Officer then, him him questions, attempted asked and to handcuff before him into the back seat of the officer’s car. placing view, In petitioner’s the officer’s use of handcuffs was the ultimate display police authority petitioner, over and it a required showing probable probable cause. Because continues, cause was the arrest was unlaw- lacking, petitioner Therefore, ful. that anything flowed from the unlawful arrest seized, must be the fail resisting charge must because petitioner right had a to resist an unlawful arrest. legal

Petitioner’s care- argument “community second involves taking” police. argues community function of He that the not caretaking permit involuntary, doctrine does warrantless individuals, if seizures of and even the doctrine could be individuals, encompass extended tо seizure of the seizure of is outside the confines of this doctrine and thus petitioner violates the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner that this argues State, doctrine “has no countenance in the law prior of this reject and this must of Special Appeals’ Court Court this wrongful Maryland, inclusion of doctrine within the law of law, both as a matter of and matter of Brief of policy.” at 20. It is view that the petitioner petitioner’s community is very scope only applies doctrine limited Alternatively, entries onto land and searches of effects. peti- tioner if the argues that even doctrine is to be recognized Maryland, acting the officer was outside of its narrow scope when he to handcuff sought petitioner. arrested,

The argues petitioner State that was not but instead was detained Zimmerer reasonably pursu- Officer ant the police community caretaking function. Because assistance, to the officer to be in need of it petitioner appeared was reasonable for the officer to to the transport petitioner Overlap: Community Exception and Medicine Caretaker and the Treatment,

Right Medical 38 U. Tol. L.Rev. 741 Refuse before petitioner as to handcuffs place as well hospital, Alternatively, car. State him into putting improper, petition- if initial detention was that even the argues event intervening constituted an the officer upon er’s assault initial, arguendo illegal his any taint from that attenuated detention, evidence seized any and therefore Finally, argues detention. State any illegal not the fruit of illegal petitioner’s if the initial detention was that even intervening event the officer did not constitute assault on detention, the from the initial alleged attenuated taint any marijuana. be would be only suppressed evidence to III. to the Con The Fourth Amendment United States 3 in and from unreasonable protects persons places stitution the The Fourth Amendment does government. trusions seizures, however, only against all but protect against not Sharpe, and seizures. States v. tin-reasonable searches United 1568, 1573, 84 605 470 U.S. 105 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d reasonable, or assessing In whether a search seizure analysis of our under the Fourth Amend touchstone “[t]he ‘the in all the circumstances of always ment is reasonableness personal the invasion of a citizen’s particular governmental ” Mimms, 108-09, 434 98 security.’ Pennsylvania v. U.S. Ohio, (1977) 330, 332, (quoting Terry 54 L.Ed.2d 331 v. S.Ct. (1968)). 1878-79, 1, 19, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 392 88 U.S. S.Ct. the public on a balance between “depends Reasonableness free right personal security interest and the individual’s Maryland law officers.” arbitrary from interference Wilson, 882, 885, 41 408, 411, 117 137 L.Ed.2d 519 S.Ct. U.S. reads as 3. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution follows: houses, right persons, papers, people “The to be secure in their seizures, effects, be against unreasonable searches and shall not and cause, issue, violated, upon probable and no Warrants shall but affirmation, describing supported by particularly Oath or searched, things place persons to be seized." to be and the U.S. Const amend. IV. (1997) Brignoni-Ponce, States v. U.S. (quoting United (1975)) 873, 878, 2574, 2579, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 S.Ct. community argument. We turn to State’s Zimmerer’s actions as conduct justifies The State Officer In “community сaretaking within the function.” falling police Dombrowski, 433, 441, 2523, 2528, Cady v. 413 U.S. S.Ct. (1973), the Court first used the term Supreme L.Ed.2d 706 caretaker,” the police impound- and validated “community automobiles, cause, on underlying probable ments of without police protect that the needed to act to grounds case, police from traffic. In that interrupted hazards were called to an accident scene in which Dom- Wisconsin browski, officer, drunk, a while had Chicago police driving abutment. bridge Believing crashed his car into Chica- carry were their service revolv- go police required officers ers, unsuccessfully searched car for the service his revolver, then the car to the station. Dom- towed driving, hospitalized browski was arrested for drunk then injuries. day, for his At the station the next overnight the service revolver in the trunk of police looked for car. saw evidence of a murder in the They Dombrowski’s trial, trunk. At used the evidence from Dombrow- State ski’s car to convict him of the murder which was unrelated to the automobile accident. of for the Appeals

The United States Court Seventh Circuit held that the warrantless search and seizure violated Dom- under the Fourth Amendment. Dombrowski rights browski’s (7th Cir.1972). The Cady, F.2d United States seizure, reversed and the search and Supreme upheld Court that the “caretaker” search and seizure was reason- holding detection, able it divorced from the “totally because or of evidence to the viola- investigation, acquisition relating tion of a criminal statute” and because search was aimed rather than ensuring safety general public, at of Cady, evidence related to crime detection. uncovering 441, 447, 93 S.Ct. at 2531. U.S. control and to take required were police that

Noting a car it constituted nuisance because custody of Dombrowski’s condition, not care for it Dombrowski, could because his had reason himself, reasoned that Court car, lot, inside the on an unattended that a revolver was worry community. hazard to the Court thereby posed a for the to search it was reasonable concluded in of their care- “community trunk the exercise Dombrowski’s possi- “to from the taking” responsibilities, protect or perhaps that a revоlver would fall into untrained bility In upholding Id. at 93 S.Ct. at 2529. malicious hands.” search, the Court as follows: Supreme explained of the extensive of motor vehicles and regulation “Because traffic, a and also because of the with which frequency vehicle can disabled or involved in an accident on become the extent of contact involv- public highways, police-citizen be than ing substantially greater police- automobiles will in a home or citizen contact office. Some such contacts will occur the officer believe the has may operator because statute, a many violated criminal but more will not be officers, officers, that nature. Local federal unlike vehicle accidents in which there is no frequently investigate what, liability claim of criminal want engage for term, as may community caretaking better be described detection, divorced from the junctions, totally investigation, of evidence to the violation of a acquisition relating criminal statute.” added).

Id. at at 2528 (emphаsis S.Ct. Cady, many Since courts have considered the breadth and scope community caretaking function of law enforce- ment officers.4 courts have construed the nar- Some notion See, commnnity caretaking e.g., 4. Some stales have enacted statutes. provides, part: § Or Rev 133.033 That statute Stat “(1) law, Except expressly prohibited any peace as otherwise perform community ... is officer of this state authorized to caretak- ing functions. section, (2) ‘community caretaking As used in this functions' means any duty peace lawful acts that are inherent in the the of officer rowly and others have it wide berth. The so-called given doctrine does not have a but rather an single meaning, is (1) umbrella that three encompasses least other doctrines: (2) doctrine, the emergency-aid the automobile impound- (3) doctrine,5 and the ment/inventory exception. servant community caretaking Some courts have limited functions to expand automobiles and have declined to it to the warrantless See, e.g., United States of a or entry residence business. (11th Cir.2005) McGough, (stating F.3d “we protect public. 'Community caretaking serve and functions’ includes, but is not limited to: (a) right upon premises The to enter or remain of another if it reasonably appears necessary to be to: (A) any person property; Prevent serious harm to or (B) injured persons; Render aid to or ill (C) missing persons.” Locate § 133.033. Or.Rev.Stat. permutation police community caretaking 5. The second function inventory Opperman, is the 368, search. In South Dakota v. 428 U.S. 3092, 3097, (1976), 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 the United States Supreme purposes underlying Court set out the caretaker the automo- inventory Recognizing reiterating bile search. be- distinction purposes, tween a home and an for Fourth Amendment automobile automobile, expectation privacy the lesser of in an the Court observed brought frequent that law enforcement officials are into contact with automobiles, mostly Using in a noncriminal nature. Id. the term function,” "community caretaking the Court stated: public safety part "In the what interests of and as the Court has functions,' 'community caretaking frequently called automobiles are police custody. present taken into Vehicle ‍​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‍accidents one such occa- permit uninterrupted sion. To flow traffic and in some evidence, preserve damaged circumstances to disabled or vehicles highways will often be removed from the or streets at behest of police engaged solely carelaking and traffic-control activities. frequently impound Police will which also remove and automobiles parking thereby jeopardize violate ordinances and which both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. The authority to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding threatening public safety traffic or and convenience is beyond challenge." 368-69, (footnotes omitted). Id. at 96 S.Ct. at 3097 and citations purposes underlying exception duty this warrant include a owner way protect dangerous of the car well as as from items damaged property. and from claims for or lost Almost all states have 369-71, upheld regard. function in this Id. at S.Ct. at 3097-98.

431 community caretaking held that the explicitly never have into entry the warrantless permits a officer functions of Erickson, 529 991 F.2d home”); States v. United private a Cir.1993) func (9th community caretaking to extend (refusing home); v. States of United private warrantless search tion to Cir.1982) (7th to extend (declining 687 F.2d 204 Pichany, of ware to warrantless search caretaking function community (N.D.2008) Gill, (refusing to house); 755 454 State v. N.W.2d dwelling). search of Other to warrantless apply exception in community caretaking intrusions courts have addressed See, e.g., United States stops. contexts other than automobile Cir.2005) (10th (detention Garner, of 1208 individu v. 416 F.3d (1st Cir.1978) Miller, 1117 al); v. 589 F.2d United States (Me.1995) Dube, (search v. 655 A.2d 338 yacht); of a State Waters, (search 20 Va.App. v. apartment); of Commonwealth individual). (1995) (detention 285, of 456 527 S.E.2d considered the breadth previously This has not Court functions, expressly adopted nor has it caretaking community to the warrant exception as an “community the care doctrine” as it relates individ- of the Fourth Amеndment requirement Lewis, 398 and in need of aid. See uals outside of the home Nevertheless, 373, long we have 920 at 1094. Md. at A.2d that activities categories at least two recognized (1) functions: community caretaking fall within purportedly (2) doctrine,6 and impoundment/inventory the automobile 247, 256, State, 281 Md. 378 A.2d 1114 6. In Duncan and Smith v. ‘‘Lajctivities (1977), concerning carried out automobiles we noted that safety public and as ‘communi- police officers in the interests of local being frequently in taken ty result the automobile functions' 368-69, S.Ct. at custody.” Citing Opperman, 428 U.S. at in following: we further observed permit unin- present one occasion. To ‘‘Vehicle accidents such preserve terrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances evidence, damaged removed from vehicles will often be disabled or police engaged solely in highways at the behest of or streets frequently will also caretaking and activities. Police traffic-control impound parking which ordinances automobiles violate remove public safety thereby jeopаrdize and the efficient and which both authority traffic. The to seize and movement of vehicular emergency aid doctrine. The aid doctrine and the emergency overlap welfare function often and both to be at appear issue this case. emergency aid doctrine was recognized by United Arizona, Supreme Mincey

States Court 437 U.S. 2408, 2413, (1978), excep- S.Ct. L.Ed.2d as an tion requirement, Fourth Amendment warrant based enforcement upon premise law officers should be able to act without a warrant when they reasonably believe needs person Application immediate attention. of the emer- gency firmly aid doctrine is established in Maryland. State, 389, 392-93, 76,

In Davis v. 236 Md. 204 A.2d 79-80 (1964), firemen and were police called to a house an individual who discovered a dead in the back body yard. arrived, After they police noticed a trail of blood leading from door, the victim to the rear were they able to observe a of human feet the pair inside home. The officers then entered the home and discovered sleeping along defendant on a couch with evidence that he the committed crime. Id. at A.2d at 79. This Court held that the officers’ warrant- less into the home was a entry reasonable search under the emergency aid doctrine. Id. at at The A.2d 80. Court reasoned that the officers were required to “offer aid within the person very house on the distinct possibility that person this had suffered at the hands of the perpetrator 395-96, of the homicide discovered in the yard.” back Id. at 204 A.2d at 80.

Reiterating general rule that a warrant is required home, enter a an entry Court noted that made during situation is a emergency recognized exception. The Court police entry held that the onto the property defendant’s death, thus, for the purpose investigating reported the officers were legitimately premises and were not Then, “in of the trespassers. light gory scene which confront- impeding threatening remove from the streets vehicles traffic or public safety beyond challenge.” and convenience is Duncan, 281 Md. at 378 A.2d at 1114. home, their duties in the back of the Davis’ yard ed of the found investigation person death regard with they there commanded that determine whether more than one carnage obviously had been victimized in the which had person Id. The in the place.” entry taken 204 A.2d at 80. lawful, on the basis: following house was held to be into the “We find that the entrance of officers existing house was reasonable under the circumstances then in order to determine whether the feet which were seen distress, therein Denell those person Lt. were of a circumstances, might, immediate aid to whom under similar a human life. preserved humanity required have Basic person the officers offer aid to the within the house on the that this had at the very possibility person distinct suffered in the perpetrator hands of the homicide discovered back which would have result- yard. delay necessarily ed from an for a search warrant have application might been the difference between life and death for the person no of life within the house. The exhibiting signs seen of humаn life has been considered preservation paramount to the constitutional demand of a search warrant as a condition to the invasion of a precedent privacy by Judge Burger Wayne As in dwelling aptly house. stated States, (D.C.Cir.1963): v. 205, United 318 F.2d by illegal into a home force is not if it is ‘Breaking * * * in a reasonable the circumstances. But warrant is burning not to break down a door to enter a required fire, home to rescue or a to occupants extinguish prevent injured a or to aid to an shooting bring emergency The need to or life or avoid person. protect preserve justification serious is for what would be injury otherwise illegal exigency absent an Fires or dead emergency. bodies are to cranks where no fires or reported police bodies are to be found. in to Acting response reports bodies,’ the police may ‘dead find the ‘bodies’ to be drunks, shock, in common diabetics or distressed cardiac and firemen is to But the business of patients. policemen act, not or meditate sрeculate report on whether the is if emergencies police could well die in People

correct. with the tried to act with the calm deliberation associated are judicial apparently Even dead often process. A circum- myriad swift police response. saved fall within the terms circumstances’ ‘exigent stances could States, 301, to in Miller v. United U.S. [357 referred (1958) 1190, 2 out e.g., coming L.Ed.2d 1332 smoke ] S.Ct. door, house, in a gunfire a window or under a sound of the door at through threats from inside shoot injured believe an or seri- police, grounds reasonable ill ously being is held within.’ person Roberts, 374, also v. 47 Cal.2d 303 P.2d 721 People See (1956).” 80-81; State, 395-96,

Id. at 204 A.2d at see also Lebedun 257, 272-73, 283 Md. 390 A.2d Alexander, Md.App.

The in Special Appeals, Court of community caretaldng addressed the func- 721 A.2d in the context of a home where found protecting tion Jr., Moylan, E. for the open Judge writing door. Charles Persons in Need of Assis- panel, upon “Aiding commented tance” of the doctrine and noted as follows: prong not, function’ or ‘community caretaking labeled a

“Whether to aid need of assis- duty persons apparent one such is of a home glancing through tance. If when window sidewalk, instance, for see an from the even if man clutch his chest and fall to the floor or elderly floor, already a on the their they only prostrate figure see promptly possible emergen- is to to a medical duty respond Fourth Amendment niceties could cy. Undue concern with might victim who otherwise have survived.” yield dead that the Id. at 721 A.2d at 280. court reiterated engaged is that the “were touchstone of doctrine and not in an community caretaking investigative a function such appropriate judging function and that the standard for 280, ‍​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‍that of reasonableness.” Id. at general behavior is A.2d at 286. 721

435 in aid doctrine emergency have upheld courts Maryland State, See, 335 v. e.g., Caroll various other circumstances. to be (1994) into home 723, (holding entry 646 A.2d 376 Md. cause probable officers have law enforcement reasonable when has recently or is either in burglary progress that a to believe committed; permit of the situation exigencies been for warrant to search without a premises to enter the officers v. Oken occupant’s property); protect intruders and to (1992) to a respond State, 628, (police A.2d 258 327 Md. 612 Alexander, 258, 124 721 Md.App. report); missing persons call neighbor’s in response entered home (police A.2d 275 into and been broken the home had that he believed stating State, 173, 624 Md.App. Burks v. 96 away); were the residents (1993) motel room without warrant entered (police 1257 A.2d victims). kidnaping rescue two as a also recognized has been function known as the is sometimes rule what welfare general public protect act to When the exception. servant” “public normal law enforcement outside their in a manner to validate the doctrine function, applied courts have many seizures, variety in a searches many warrantless (officer Garner, exercised com F.3d 1208 416 circumstances. he defendant to come when told caretaking function munity him); examine department that fire could sit down so back and find Miller, boat and (boarding 1117 an abandoned 589 F.2d under the trafficking was lawful of narcotics ing evidence drowning the possible doctrine because community caretaking People Ray, v. investigated); was being the boat owner (1999) (officers P.2d 928 Cal.Rptr.2d Cal.4th in call that it was response in to a apartment entered lawfully to check on ajar day, been left all and its door had shambles People the apartment); inside persons the welfare of Luedemann, 306 Ill.Dec. 857 N.E.2d 222 Ill.2d (2006) (officer caretaking function community exercised defendant, intoxicated and was appeared who checking Dube, 655 A.2d car at parked night); seat of seated driver’s (initial apartment defendant’s into entry community as a repair lawful plumbing custodian’s oversee function); Waters, (officers’ 456 S.E.2d 527 commu nity caretaking functions include checking well-being of in public space individual a who ill in appears or need of assistance); v. Kinzy, State Wash.2d 5 P.3d 668 (2000) (community caretaking function ap extends to officer proaching youth at risk in narcotics high trafficking areas to check safety). on their

Thе common denominator throughout these cases is the non-criminal, non-investigatory police purpose. In Cady, responding were to a traffic accident rather than inves- criminal tigating activity seeking implicate defendant in Supreme a crime. The recognition Court’s of a separation between investigatory and of the non-investigatory functions police underlies the application public servant exception beyond the automobile impoundment/inventory justi- search to fy initial encounters and intrusions in other circumstances.

It is the public servant/general public welfare rule that the State invokes in this case to justify officer’s initial contact with petitioner. Law enforcement contact in the noncriminal context arises most often in two general circum- stances. The first is when police where approach parked cars appears driver to be sick or when the car appears to be area, A functioning improperly. second which in is issue judice, case sub is when law enforcement approach officers pedestrians who to need appear they assistance because ap- sick, in pear danger or need of some emergency assistance. These encounters are commonly justified only when the pur- pose police is unrelated to criminal investigations. “public safety”

The doctrine is upon recogni based a tion that law enforcement officers perform myriad of func tions and responsibilities, the enforcement of criminal laws State, being only one of them. Williams 962 A.2d 216- Wayne (Del.2008); R. LaFave, Seizure, and Search 5.4(C) (4th 2004). Delaware, § ed. Supreme Court of Williams, described the underpinnings the doctrine as follows: ‘jack-of-all-emergencies,’

“The officer is a modern tasks to in addition to complex multiple perform with serious identifying apprehending persons committing offenses; by design criminal default or he is also [or she] are in expected danger physical aid individuals who harm, themselves, who cannot care for assist those require other on an basis. To provide emergency services suspicion activity articulable of criminal before reasonable can and render assistance in these situa- police investigate and ability tions would their severely hamstring protect the public.” serve (internal omitted).

Williams, 962 A.2d at 216-17 citations Court, As the Delaware as well as the Supreme did in the find majority jurisdictions country, of we that community caretaking welfare function component a non-criminal role police “encompasses non-investigative, citizens,” safety reflecting to ensure the and welfare of our that the role of the is not limited to the principle police that and of crime in this investigation, prevention detection State. 218; Lovegren, See id. at see also State v. 310 Mont. P.3d 475-76

Many community caretaking courts have embraced the doc- trine/public exception, welfare thereby permitting police citizens in investigate may or aid who need assistance or are danger. police The exercise of this is nоt power limits, without strict however. The function of the caretaking police always rights protections must be balanced with the under the United enjoyed by our citizens States Constitution See, and the Declaration of Maryland Rights. e.g., United (10th Cir.1993) F.2d King, (stating States “[wjhether the seizure of a a officer person by that in his or her is reasonable acting noninvestigatory capacity it is based on facts and depends specific whether articulable court to inter- requires reviewing governmental balance ‘community in the officer’s of his or her est exercise in free caretaking being function’ and individual’s interest interference”). arbitrary government from protect fashioned a test to Supreme The Delaware Court approach. the Montana rights, upon fundamental based Williams, The as follows: 962 A.2d at 219. test is formulated that the encounter was part must ascertain

“[W]e function; the offi- caretaker community officer’s func- caretaking it remained within the during cer’s actions ceased, tion; function had and that once terminated, justifi- or some other either the encounter was cation existed for its continuance.” Montana, Id. subsequent- test formulated specific in Delaware reads as follows: ly adopted “First, objective, specific as there are and articula- long as experienced suspect ble facts from which an officer would or is in then that help peril, that a citizen is need Second, if the right stop investigate. officer has the aid, then the officer take may appropri- citizen is in need of Third, peril. to render assistance or mitigate ate action once, however, that the citizen is not the officer is assured peril no in need of assistance or that the peril longer or is that constitute any beyond been then actions mitigated has by only protections provided not the implicating a seizure Amendment, the Fourth more those importantly, great- but under guarantees [state law].” er afforded Lovegren, 51 P.3d at 475-76. the test to Appeals adopted three-part

The Court of Special a detention to their by police pursuant determine whether test, function. The as articulated community caretaking in for the Tenth Circuit Appeals the United States Court Garner, qualify for a detention to as 416 F.3d function, be: caretaking must community exercise “(1) ... and articulable facts which upon specific based liberty; the warrant an intrusion into individual’s reasonably (2) outweigh the interest must the individual’s government’s interfer- arbitrary in free from being governmental interest ence; and necessary to than is

(3) longer must last no the detention carefully its must be scope and purpose, effectuate its underlying justification.” to its tailored 16-17, (citing at 744-45 Wilson, 932 A.2d Md.App. 1213). Garner, 416 F.3d at and our sister Appeals, of Special did the

As Court the exercise assuring that a toward goal with jurisdictions, is conducted caretaking function community welfare public the a To enable similar test. a somewhat adopt we reasonably, whether investigate in a citizen order stop7 officer to aid, or or in need distress peril, is person apparent facts to articulable objective, specific have officer must aid, the is in need of If the citizen or her concern. his support steps provide appropriate may take reasonable officer the officer is assured Once peril. to mitigate assistance assistance, or that in need of longer citizen is no that the function is caretaking officer’s mitigated, has been peril aby supported contact must be over. Further complete activity, of criminal warrant, suspicion articulable reasonable The offi requirement. to the warrant exception or another In assess must be reasonable. ‍​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‍to aid the citizen cer’s efforts reasonable, we actions were enforcement’s law ing whether alter effectiveness of feasibility and availability, consider the officer. See effected to the of intrusion type natives Kramer, 759 N.W.2d 315 Wis.2d State 7. Anderson, have noted munity presented. not circumstances (focusing moving moving on different We take no moving (Mimi.Ct.App.1985) (1990). been briefed nor car); car vehicle on 149 Wis.2d abuse of this See, grounds by improper under the difference betwеen position State v. and await e.g., Doheny function of 663, (refusing Sarhegyi, argued State this case as to whether authority by police, and highway. Because 439 N.W.2d opining on the v. Comm’r community caretaking v. in this Anderson, 492 N.W.2d apply stopped case, 840, would Pub. 155 Wis.2d issue until exception we do not address 847-48 284, many permit the Safety, 368 N.W.2d moving because 288 n. 1 of our sister analysis) (1989) 77, 454 N.W.2d to the it is cars); this issue has welfare/com (stopping a (N.D.1992) stop of a overruled properly State states those stop 1- v. IV. We now assess the reasonableness of Zim Officer merer’s contact with petitioner. analyzed Some courts have encounter in the context of whether the contact is a seizure; others have determined that it is not a seizure but that the police conduct was reasonable. We have made clear that the Fourth Amendment guarantees implicated are not all circumstances where the police have contact with an indi State, 139, 149, vidual. v. See 393 Md. 899 A.2d Swift (2006) D., 873-74 (citing v. Hodari 499 U.S. California 625-26, 1547, 1550-51, (1991)); S.Ct. 113 L.Ed.2d 690 State, 121, 133, Scott v. 366 Md. 782 A.2d We employed a three-tier analysis of police interaction with citi State, Haley 106, 131-32, zens. 398 Md. 919 A.2d (2007); 149-51, 1214-15 Swift, 393 Md. at 899 A.2d at 873. arrest, The most intrusive encounter is an which requires probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a crime. The second is the category investigatory detention, stop or commonly known as a Teiry an stop, encounter considered less intrusive than a formal custodial arrest and one which must be supported by reasonable suspi cion that a person has or committed is about to commit a crime and an permits officer to stop briefly detain an individual. The third contact is considered the least intrusive contact, police-citizen and one which involves no restraint of liberty and elicits an voluntary individual’s cooperation with non-coercive police encounter, contact. A consensual or a mere need not accosting, be supported by any suspicion and because an individual is free to leave at any time such during encounter, the Fourth thus, Amendment is not implicated; an individual is not considered to have been “seized” within meaning Fourth Amendment. Regardless whether not, the court has held contact to be a seizure all courts seem to require the officer’s actions be reason 149-51, able. Swift, 393 Md. at 899 A.2d 873-74. Officer Zimmerer’s initial encounter with petition er did not rise to the level of a seizure implicating the Fourth State, for the Writing majority Crosby Amendment. 503, 894, (2009), 901 n. 14 Harrell Judge Md. 970 A.2d that a “mere is the level of an encoun- accosting” noted lowest accosting that an individual have with the An may police. ter officer, when a as in the case sub judice, simply occurs an any authority calls out to individual without show signs of force or The Fourth Amendment does not weapons. to apply accosting because “such an encounter does not any authority by police.” Crosby, entail show of Md. n. 970 A.2d at 901. The petitioner lying officer saw in the middle to check his roadway initially simply upon called out well- From the time that Zimmerer being. grabbed peti Officer coat, however, tioner his sat him down on the curb and him, talking person to a reasonable would have believed began free to longer that he was no leave. This belief was reinforced conveying going Zimmerer that he was petitioner Officer him hospital to take to the after him in handcuffs in placing cruiser. At the time that Officer Zimmerer de leave, tained so that he was no free to petitioner longer encounter between the officer and rose to the level petitioner seizure, aof and we therefore examine it under the Fourth Amendment.

The officer’s encounter with petitioner was conducted aid to or in the provide emergency petitioner officer’s capacity protect public welfare. Officer Zimmerer that he approached petitioner testified because of his concern for health and he first petitioner’s safety, when observed petitioner, approached Officer Zimmerer him to “see if he was The okay.” officer had no indication or reason to suspect and, therefore, petitioner was involved in criminal he activity could not have entertained the reasonable suspicion articulable to make required Terry stop. 392 U.S. Terry, S.Ct. petitioner’s 1868. Neither silence when the officer accosted him, knuckles, nor petitioner’s the abrasions on face and provided the officer with sufficient cause to probable arrest petitioner him. encounter between Officer Zimmerer and because, consistent with the continue reasonably could function, petition- Zimmerer wanted to find out welfare Officer him, ... “name, find out wrong him what was with er’s ask that petition- The officer then determined where he lived at.” handcuffs on hospital placed examined at a er should be proper that he could receive medical assistance. him so Zimmerer’s seizure of then becomes whether Officer question reasonable, the absence of notwithstanding was petitioner warrant. to place Zimmerer’s decision

We hold Officer in him to the transport hospital in handcuffs and to petitioner underlying to the carefully cruiser was not tailored his for the seizure. Just as intrusion conducted justification be “limit community caretaking to the doctrine must pursuant out the necessary carry to the extent scope ed 375, 3100; function,” at 96 at 428 U.S. S.Ct. Opperman, (5th Andrews, 1328, Cir.1994), 22 v. F.3d United States aid. provide emergency so too must a seizure conducted must be the This does not mean that the method intrusion available, Lafayette, see Illinois v. 462 U.S. least intrusive one 2610, (1983)8; 640, 647, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 Plakas 103 S.Ct. (7th Drinski, Cir.1994), but the intrusion v. 19 F.3d to the circumstances “reasonably scope must be related in the New justified place.” which the interference first 733, 743, T.L.O., 325, 341, 105 S.Ct. Jersey 469 U.S. L.Ed.2d 720 enforcement’s actions were rea- assessing

In whether law sonable, and effective- availability, feasibility we consider the type by alternatives to the of intrusion effected ness of him to transport handcuffs on Placing petitioner officer. Lafayette, Supreme noted that "[t]he 8. In the United States Court governmental activity any particular does not neces- reasonableness of invariably intrusive’ sarily or turn on the existence of alternative ‘less Lafayette, 103 S.Ct. at 2610. The Court means.” 462 U.S. at protection pointed Cady, fact that the out that in "[the] abstract, might, accomplished by intrusive' means in the have been ‘less not, itself, the search unreasonable.” Id. does render at 2610. S.Ct. treatment, under the circumstances for medical hospital crime, no herein, not reasonable. Petitioner committed If medical treat- suspected activity. was not of criminal reason any does not indicate necessary, the record ment was actions called. Zimmerer’s ambulance was not Officer why an community caretaker those under permitted exceeded was therefore unreason- petitioner His seizure of function. able. APPEALS THE COURT OF SPECIAL

JUDGMENT OF THAT REMANDED TO COURT CASE REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT TO REVERSE INSTRUCTIONS WITH COUN- COURT FOR WASHINGTON THE CIRCUIT OF A TRI- THAT COURT FOR NEW TY AND REMAND TO AND IN THE OF IN COURT AL. COSTS THIS COURT BE PAID BY APPEALS TO WASHINGTON SPECIAL COUNTY. HARRELL, J„ CATHELL, which

Dissenting Opinion J., joins. very is fine until its end Majority opinion

I The dissent. 893) 442-43, misapplies A.2d when it its (Maj. at op. community care-taking careful and recitation of analysis The applied Maryland. Majority as it be function should Zimmerer violated Wilson’s Fourth Amend- holds that Officer and him transported ment when he handcuffed Wilson rights Maj. Calling at 975 A.2d 892. it hospital. op to the tailored) (i.e., not to handcuff narrowly “unreasonable” Wilson him in for such trаnsport, in order to the cruiser place its conclusion that it discerns no important finds it Majority ambulance was not sum- why reason in the record for an 441-42, Maj. 975 A.2d 892. purpose. op. monsed for the latitude that Majority’s reasoning ought overrides the discretionary to law enforcement officers to make granted be be may necessary to what additional services calls as that, The record tells me other varying circumstances. under and his general than knuckles on his hands scraped some behavior, condition not have may observed catatonic Wilson’s event, any an EMT. In what commanded an ambulance and circumstances, that, these Majority imagine makes the under would not have been restricted restraints liberty Wilson’s transported by Transport by police had he been ambulance? reasonable, vehicle to the occa- eminently appropriate seems sion, To call Zimmerer’s exercise fiscally sound. Officer wrong. of here unreasonable and unconstitutional is judgment Special Krauser stated for the of Judge As Chief Court in its in this matter: Appeals opinion thought might “possibly the officer [Although [Wilson] of a sub- dangerous under influence controlled [be] stance,” he later trans- stopped he testified that [him] him to the out of concern for ported hospital [Wilson’s] others, of and not to detect or investi- safety safety criminal conduct The officer stated gate any [Wilson]. vehicle to because he got that he out of his follow [Wilson] that, in okay”; light “wanted to make sure that [Wilson] condition, he decided to take him to the [Wilson’s] that he handcuffed not to consummate hospital; [him] in accordance with and that department policy; arrest but [Wilson], wrong he could not be sure of what was with ^{[*] [*]} 4: case, attempt In the instant Officer Zimmerer’s initial not amount to an arrest. place [Wilson] handcuffs did Zimmerer did not detain “for the purpose prose- [Wilson] him purpose him for a crime.” ‍​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‍He detained for the cuting him to the He also never told taking hospital. [Wilson] arrest, that he was under nor did he believe that [Wilson] was under arrest until аfter he resisted to hand- attempts fact, In the officer that he cuff him. told was [Wilson] station, taking hospital him not to a but to further that he was handcuffed so that he explained being into the cruiser and placed transported could be there. [Wilson], he handcuffed why

When asked State that replied, departmental policy Officer Zimmerer “It’s be handcuffed ... in the everybody prior being put all, I know what was vehicle,” of didn’t and that “[s]econd said, possibly I 1 believed he was with him. Like wrong substance.” dangerous influence of a controlled under the was arrested to whether inquired [Wilson] the Sate as When Thus, said, was “no.” [Wilson] the officer point, at this and “to policy with department in accordance handcuffed “what officer,” he not know was because did protect The officer’s to handcuff attempt with” wrong [him]. Zim- arrest, to Officer according into an only transformed Zimmerer in resist- merer, assaulted Officer when [Wilson] procedure. ing 7, 20-21, 932 A.2d 746-47 Md.App. right, my it view. Special Appeals got Court that Wilson’s motion judgment J would affirm its

Accordingly, Court for correctly by was denied Circuit suppress Washington County. joins he has me to state that

Judge CATHELL authorized dissent. this 975A.2d 894 ASSOCIATION, RACING INC. LAUREL FACILITY LOCATION VIDEO LOTTERY COMMISSION, et al. 159, Sept. Term, No. 2008. Appeals Maryland.

Court July 2009.

Case Details

Case Name: Wilson v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date Published: Jul 20, 2009

Citation: 975 A.2d 877

Docket Number: 91, September Term, 2007

Court Abbreviation: Md.