Brigham City v. Stuart

¶1concurring and dissenting:

¶2¶47 Although I agree with much of the majority’s opinion, I respectfully dissent from its application of the exigent circumstances doctrine to the facts of this case. In my view, the Fourth Amendment does not prescribe paralysis when law enforcement officials are eyewitnesses to an ongoing assault and immediate intervention is necessary to prevent physical harm.

¶3¶ 48 The question posed by this appeal is whether police officers who personally witness an ongoing physical altercation in a residence may enter that residence in order to prevent bodily harm, or whether those officers must remain rooted onlookers, waiting passively for violence to escalate to a point at which severe harm is likely to occur. Unlike the majority, I conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to be spectators in the face of ongoing violence and, in fact, allows officers to intervene in circumstances like those present in this case.

¶4¶ 49 The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. Although the amendment has been interpreted as drawing “a firm line at the entrance to the house,” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that line can be crossed so long as the government entry is reasonable under the circumstances, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (observing that the Fourth Amendment’s “ ‘central requirement’ is one of reasonableness”); Pennsylvania v. Minims, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is [and] always [has been] the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (internal quotation omitted)).

¶5¶ 50 It is well established that “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton, 445 U.S. at 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371. However, “[t]he ordinary requirement of a warrant is sometimes supplanted by other elements that render the unconsented search ‘reasonable.’ ” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Edüd 148 (1990). As the majority correctly acknowledges, a warrant-less entry into a home is reasonable if the entry can be justified under either the emergency aid or exigent circumstances doctrine. See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); State v. Comer, 2002 UT App 219, ¶¶ 17, 21, 51 P.3d 55; State v. Beavers, 859 P.2d 9, 18 (Utah Ct.App.1993). Both of these doctrines allow for warrantless entries to prevent physical harm. See, e.g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (stating that the need to protect life or prevent injury in an emergency or exigent situation justifies otherwise unconstitutional behavior); Comer, 2002 UT App 219 at ¶ 5 n. 1, 51 P.3d 55 (noting that the emergency aid doctrine can be invoked *519when officers “have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency exists and believe there is an immediate need [of] assistance for the protection of life”); Beavers, 859 P.2d at 18 (observing that exigent circumstances exist when officers reasonably believe immediate entry is required “to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons” (internal quotation omitted)).

¶61151 I agree with the majority that, in this case, the trial court’s factual findings cannot be read to justify the officers’ warrantless entry on the theory that the officers were supplying “emergency aid.” I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the situation encountered by the officers was insufficiently “exigent” to justify an immediate entry.

¶7¶ 52 “There is ... no absolute test for determining whether exigent circumstances are present because such a determination ultimately depends on the unique facts of each case.” United States v. Gray, 71 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1084 (D.Kan.1999) (citing United States v. Anderson, 154 F.3d 1225, 1233 (10th Cir.1998)). “Generally, exigency does not evolve from one individual fact. Instead, there is a mosaic of evidence, no single part of which is itself sufficient.” State v. Ashe, 745 P.2d 1255, 1258 (Utah 1987). Consequently, a reviewing court must evaluate the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the warrantless entry, see id.,while considering how those facts and circumstances “would have appeared to prudent, cautious, trained officers,” Gray, 71 F.Supp.2d at 1084.

¶8¶ 53 The majority accurately acknowledges that the emergency aid and exigent circumstances doctrines impose different thresholds of harm that must be met before the doctrines can be properly invoked. See supra ¶29. As evidence of this distinction, the majority reasons that officers are more likely to encounter threats to their personal safety when pursuing a law enforcement objective than when serving in a caretaking capacity. See supra ¶¶ 29-30. That distinction does partially explain why. the exigent circumstances doctrine can be invoked in situations where the level of harm at issue is significantly lower than in an emergency aid situation.

¶9¶ 54 However, in my view, the pivotal reason for requiring a lower quantum of harm in the exigent circumstances context is that officers invoking exigency must first show probable cause of criminal activity before making a warrantless entry, a requirement absent in the emergency aid context. Because invocation of the exigent circumstances doctrine demands the presence of probable cause, that doctrine is a significantly less dramatic departure from typical Fourth Amendment requirements than the emergency aid doctrine. This fact diminishes the necessity of demanding high level of physical harm before allowing a warrantless entry in exigent circumstances, as the high physical harm threshold of the emergency aid doctrine is set, at least partially, to ensure that the doctrine is not utilized as mere pretext.

¶10¶ 55 Here, the officers were justified in entering the residence because, at the time of their entry, they possessed both probable cause that a continuing assault was being committed within the residence1 and a reasonable belief that an immediate entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to others. See Beavers, 859 P.2d at 17-18.

¶11¶ 56 According to the trial court, officers investigating a noise complaint observed underage drinking through a slat fence bordering the backyard of the residence that was the subject of the complaint. Upon entering the backyard, the officers were able to see into the residence through windows and a screen door. At that moment, the officers became eyewitnesses to a physical altercation involving five individuals, one of whom was a juvenile. The officers saw the four adults attempting to restrain the juvenile. It could not have been clear which of the parties to the melee were victims and which were instigators. Also, the officers could not have known whether they were witnessing domes*520tic violence, as even trained police officers do not have the necessary clairvoyance to instantly determine if participants in a physical altercation are members of the same household. The officers, while observing the ongoing struggle, saw the juvenile wrest a hand free and “smack” one of the adults in the nose. Given that the officers had already observed underage drinking, they could have reasonably believed that alcohol was fueling the altercation, which had the potential to further escalate and cause additional harm to the participants in the fight. There will be uncertainties in any law enforcement situation. The officers in the present case were, no doubt, uncertain about many things. However, they were certain that a fight was in progress, that the participants had likely been consuming alcohol, and that at least one individual had already sustained an injury.

¶12¶ 57 The Fourth Amendment does not demand certainty before action. It demands only reasonableness. Because there is always some level of uncertainty about the nature of events police officers encounter, “[o]n the spot reasonable judgments by officers about risks and dangers are protected.” Fletcher v. Town, of Clinton, 196 F.3d 41, 50 (1st Cir.1999). Already armed with probable cause, the officers on the scene reasoned that immediate entry was necessary to prevent harm. That judgment was not unreasonable under the circumstances and does not offend the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., id. at 49 (“Evidence of extreme danger in the form of shots fired, screaming, or blood is not required for there to be some reason to believe that a safety risk exists.”); Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir.1998) (“The absence of blood, overturned furniture or other signs of tumult” does not require an officer “to withdraw and go about other business, or stand watch outside the premises listening for the sounds of splintering furniture.”); United States v. Brown, 64 F.3d 1083, 1086 (7th Cir.1995) (“We do not think the police must stand outside an apartment despite legitimate concerns about the welfare of an occupant, unless they can hear screams. Doubtless outcries would justify entry, but they are not essential.”).

¶13¶ 58 The majority would have the officers in this case stand outside, powerless and removed from the location of the brawl. The majority would conclude otherwise, apparently, if a knife had been pulled from a nearby kitchen drawer, elevating the potential severity of physical harm that a participant in the fight — or an innocent bystander — could suffer. The majority’s rule consigns law enforcement to the porch steps until it is too late to prevent the very injury the majority concedes officers are entitled to prevent.2

¶14¶ 59 The majority contends that the officers were not completely foreclosed from taking action: they could have knocked. The trial court’s findings of fact illustrate, however, that the majority puts undue emphasis on the officers’ decision to forego knocking before intervening in the fight. While it is true that “the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling [is] among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure,” Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995), it is not unreasonable for officers to bypass knocking or announcing their presence if such an action would be futile, dangerous, or inhibit an effective investigation of the suspected crime, see Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997); see also Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579, 588 (6th Cir.1999) (stating that just as certain exigencies excuse the warrant requirement, certain circumstances excuse officers from announcing their presence before entering a dwelling). The trial court’s unchallenged findings note that the officers encountered a “loud, tumultuous” situation and that a knock on the door would have almost certainly gone unnoticed. In *521fact, evidence adduced below showed that, even after entering the residence, the officers had to shout above the din multiple times before the occupants became aware of their presence.

¶15¶ 60 When it is apparent that an immediate physical entry into a dwelling is necessary in order to quell ongoing violence, it is ill-advised to require officers to waste precious time on the doorstep engaged in a futile attempt to announce their presence. The Fourth Amendment does not require such empty gestures.

¶16¶ 61 Although the officers in this case were faced with uncertainties, the critical aspects of the situation were clear. The officers were eyewitnesses to a “loud, tumultuous,” and ongoing brawl. Alcohol was obviously being consumed, one blow had been struck, and the officers could have reasonably believed that their intervention was necessary to prevent further injuries. In such a potentially volatile situation, neither the Fourth Amendment nor sound public policy prevents police intervention to secure the peace and protect the public. Accordingly, I would conclude that the officers did not offend the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement in the present case and would therefore reverse the court of appeals.