SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

A warrantless entry was upheld to prevent the destruction of evidence (the
blood/alcohol level) and there was reason to believe defendant intended to
resume driving. Welsh can be distinguished by the simple fact that
California treats DUI cases as serious misdemeanors. (People v. Hampton
(1985) 164 Cal.App.3 rd 27, 34.)
Entering a residence with probable cause to believe only that the nonbookable
offense of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is
occurring (H&S § 11357(b)), is closer to the Welsh situation, and a
violation of the Fourth Amendment when entry is made without consent.
(People v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal.App.4 th 1027.)
Welfare Checks, the “Emergency Aid” Doctrine, and the “Community
Caretaking Function:” Checking for victims in a residence upon a “reasonable
belief” that someone inside a residence is in need of aid, or that there is an
imminent threat to the life or welfare of someone inside, an immediate, justifies a
warrantless entry. (People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4 th 464; Tamborino v. Superior
Court (1986) 41 Cal.3 rd 919; People v. Ammons (1980) 103 Cal.App.3 rd 20.)
In Ray, supra, a “plurality” of the California Supreme Court ruled that
under the so-called “emergency aid doctrine,” which is a subcategory of a
law enforcement officer’s “community caretaking” duties, a warrantless
entry into a residence may be allowed whenever police officers
“reasonably believe” someone inside is in need of assistance or action
must be taken to preserve the occupant’s property.
“The appropriate standard under the community caretaking
exception is one of reasonableness: Given the known facts, would
a prudent and reasonable officer have perceived a need to act in the
proper discharge of his or her community caretaking functions?”
(Id. at pp. 476-477.)
Three justices in Ray found this “emergency aid doctrine” to be a
subcategory of the “community caretaking” rationale, and not a
form of “exigent circumstance.” (People v. Ray, supra, at p. 471.)
Three concurring justices found such a situation to come within the
standard “exigent circumstance” rationale. (Id., at p. 480.)
The “community caretaking” theory was found to be inapplicable when
officers entered the defendant’s locked-off property based upon little more
than a neighbor’s unsubstantiated belief that the defendants might have
been the victims of a “drug rip-off” the night before. Finding a small
amount of marijuana debris at the edge of the defendants’ property and a
small depression leading under the fence was not legally sufficient. Also,
the officers appeared more concerned with investigating allegations that
the defendants were cultivating marijuana. The community caretaking
573
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved