Opinion ID: 2338449
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State v. Myers

Text: In State v. Myers , [56] police officers on routine patrol conducted a security check in an alley and discovered a theater's fire exit door open. Following customary procedures, they entered the building to search for intruders. As the officers walked down a hallway they heard voices from a backstage area. They looked in and saw three individuals, including the theater manager, sitting on the floor with cocaine paraphernalia. The officers arrested the individuals and seized the evidence. The trial court granted the defendants' suppression motion and the State appealed. The court reversed, holding the entry and limited search were police actions for which no warrant was required and were otherwise reasonable within the meaning of constitutional protections. [57] Relying on diminished expectations of privacy in commercial premises, the court ruled police: may enter commercial premises without a warrant only when, pursuant to a routine after-hours security check undertaken to protect the interests of the property owner, it is discovered that the security of the premises is in jeopardy, and only when there is no reason to believe that the owner would not consent to such an entry. . . . Any search conducted incident to a legitimate entry must be brief and must be limited and necessary to the purpose of ensuring that no intruders are present on the premises.[ [58] ] Justice Rabinowitz concurred, but on the basis that the search fell within the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. [59] Justice Rabinowitz believed the court should expressly adopt the emergency aid exception delineated in the New York case of People v. Mitchell with the following essential components: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.[ [60] ] Chief Justice Boochever dissented, concluding the court's general reasonableness analysis was too generous in light of the availability of other less intrusive alternatives to the police entry. [61] Reasoning that the only possible exception to the warrant requirement was the emergency aid exception, [62] Chief Justice Boochever concluded the court should recognize the emergency aid exception as defined in Mitchell, subject to a requirement that no search could be justified under that exception if a reasonable alternative were available. [63] But the Chief Justice noted the emergency exception was not applicable under the facts of the case because the police had reasonable alternatives to the warrantless entry into the theater. [64]