Opinion ID: 2798569
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: public interest and exigency

Text: ¶49 The first factor is the degree of the public interest and the exigency of the situation. Id. An individual's physical and mental health status is an issue of public interest and presents an exigency when an officer reasonably determines that physical or mental health could be in jeopardy. See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶¶47-48. ¶50 In Pinkard, officers entered a residence when two occupants were unconscious. Id., ¶5. In weighing public interest and exigency as a factor to determine whether exercise of the community caretaker function was reasonable, we considered the medical consequences of officers not exercising 25 No. 2013AP2107-CR the community caretaker function. Id., ¶¶47-48. If Pinkard and his companion had been suffering from a cocaine overdose, a reasonable inference based on these facts, the officers were presented with a significant exigency, for every passing minute could have been the difference between life and death. Id., ¶47. Similarly, here, the officer reasonably inferred that Blatterman could have been suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning or other serious illness, given the information from dispatch that he had been exposed to some kind of gas and his own statement that he had chest pain. ¶51 In State v. Horngren, 2011 WI App 177, 238 Wis. 2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508, officers entered a residence in response to a call that an individual there was threatening to commit suicide. Id., ¶2. When the court of appeals weighed public interest and exigency as a factor to determine whether exercise of the community caretaker function was reasonable, the court stated that the public good involved preventing a suicide, and securing medical assistance for a troubled individual. . . . The exigency of such a situation is obvious. Id., ¶¶14-15. ¶52 In the case now before us, the officer knew of Blatterman's previous remarks about suicide by cop. Though the circumstances here differ from the threats of suicide in Horngren, nevertheless they evidence a similar public interest at stake and exigency presented to the officer. The public has a substantial interest in police ensuring the well-being and safety of citizens who may be suffering from health concerns that present exigencies. Accordingly, the first factor favors 26 No. 2013AP2107-CR the conclusion that the officer reasonably performed his community caretaker function.