Opinion ID: 2798569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Community Caretaker Exception

Text: ¶39 The federal and state Constitutions protect persons against unreasonable seizures. Arias, 311 Wis. 2d 358, ¶13. We have recognized that a police officer serving as a community caretaker to protect persons and property may be constitutionally permitted to perform seizures without probable cause. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶14 (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 448 (1973)); accord Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶18. A law enforcement officer exercises a community caretaker function, rather than a law enforcement function, when an officer discovers a member of the public who is in need of assistance. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶32. It is the State's burden to prove that the officer's conduct is a reasonable community caretaker function. Id., ¶17. ¶40 In the case before us, we discuss the applicability of the community caretaker exception as an alternative ground for the officer's transportation of Blatterman to the hospital, assuming arguendo, that the officer's arrest of Blatterman was 19 No. 2013AP2107-CR unsupported by probable cause. We interpret the provisions of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 as equivalent in regard to community caretaker analyses. Id., ¶18. Therefore, we look to the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the community caretaker exception. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶14 (citing Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶18). ¶41 The community caretaker exception has its origins in Cady. In Cady, Dombrowski's car was disabled by an accident and sitting on the side of a road. Cady, 413 U.S. at 435-36. The responding officers knew Dombrowski was a Chicago police officer and believed he was required to carry a service revolver at all times. Id. at 436. The officers conducted a warrantless search to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver would fall into untrained or perhaps malicious hands. Id. at 443. The Court upheld the warrantless search, providing the following rationale: Local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. Id. at 441. Soon after, we first applied the community caretaker exception in Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457, 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977). In Bies, we noted that [a]s a general matter [checking noise complaints] is probably more a part of the community caretaker function of the police which, while perhaps 20 No. 2013AP2107-CR lacking in some respects the urgency of criminal investigation, is nevertheless an important and essential part of the police role. Id. at 471. ¶42 In Kramer, we adopted a three-component test for evaluating potential community caretaker functions. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶21. When the State asserts a community caretaker function as the basis for a seizure, the circuit court must determine: (1) that a seizure within the meaning of the [F]ourth [A]mendment has occurred; (2) if so, whether the police conduct was [a] bona fide community caretaker [function]; and (3) if so, whether the public . . . interest outweigh[s] the intrusion [on] the privacy of the individual. Id. (quoting State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162, 169, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1987)). We now apply the Kramer test.
¶43 A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurred here. We assume for the purposes of this discussion that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Blatterman at that time. See Vorburger, 255 Wis. 2d 537, ¶68. Accordingly, our discussion of the community caretaker exception focuses on whether the officer was exercising a community caretaker function at the time of Blatterman's transportation. However, as we explain further below, the officer began exercising his community caretaker function earlier in his interaction with Blatterman and therefore, our community caretaker analysis begins before Blatterman's transportation. 21 No. 2013AP2107-CR
¶44 The second component in reviewing whether an officer was acting as a community caretaker requires the officer to be engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function if the officer's conduct is to be upheld. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶23 (citing State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶35, 243 Wis. 2d 422, 626 N.W.2d 777). In evaluating this component, we examine the totality of the circumstances as they existed at the time of the police conduct. Id., ¶30 (citing Cady, 413 U.S. at 440). We have rejected the contention that community caretaker functions must be totally independent from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the commission of a crime. Id. Rather, we have concluded that in a community caretaker context, when under the totality of the circumstances an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function is shown, that determination is not negated by the officer's subjective law enforcement concerns. Id. ¶45 Here, we conclude that the officer was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function. The officer began to exercise his community caretaking function shortly after he stopped Blatterman's vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the circuit court's findings of fact14 that dispatch informed the officer that Blatterman attempted to blow up his house by 14 The circuit court did not decide whether Blatterman's transport to the hospital was undertaken as a community caretaker function, but the court did find that the officer's medical concern for Blatterman was justified. 22 No. 2013AP2107-CR filling it with gas, that Blatterman may be intoxicated, and that Blatterman had, in the past, talked of suicide by cop.15 The circuit court also found that Blatterman exhibited erratic and disoriented behavior, he complained of chest pain, and he was wearing only a short-sleeve shirt and jeans in very cold weather. ¶46 The officer kept Blatterman handcuffed, placed him in the back of a squad car, called EMS, and transported Blatterman to the hospital after he refused EMS attention. The handcuffs kept Blatterman from hurting himself or others if concerns about his mental state were correct. Placing Blatterman in the back of a squad car kept him out of the cold weather. Calling EMS to assess his medical condition and transporting him to the hospital also addressed the officer's concerns about Blatterman's possible carbon monoxide poisoning, his selfreported chest pain, his possible alcohol use, and his mental health. The totality of circumstances demonstrates that the officer's actions were undertaken as community caretaker 15 Wisconsin's emergency detention statute, Wis. Stat. § 51.15, authorizes police officers to take an individual into custody if they have cause to believe that the individual is mentally ill and if that individual has demonstrated [a] substantial probability of physical harm to himself or herself or [a] substantial probability of physical harm to other persons. § 51.15(1)1.-2. Though neither party addressed this statute, it is worth noting that according to Horngren, police action pursuant to § 51.15 is a community caretaker function. State v. Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, ¶11, 238 Wis. 2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508. 23 No. 2013AP2107-CR functions, directly related to concern for Blatterman's physical and mental health. See Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶30. ¶47 We conclude that although Nisius held subjective law enforcement concerns, as we have explained above, those subjective concerns did not negate the objectively reasonable basis for a community caretaker function. Id. Officers may base their actions simultaneously on law enforcement and community caretaker functions. We have repeatedly explained that officers are charged with both law enforcement and community caretaker functions as part of their service of the public. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶53; Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶32. As an officer goes about his or her duties, an officer cannot always ascertain which hat the officer will wear——his law enforcement hat or her community caretaker hat. . . . Accordingly, the officer may have law enforcement concerns, even when the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for performing a community caretaker function. To conclude otherwise would ignore the multifaceted nature of police work and force police officers to let down their guard and unnecessarily expose themselves to dangerous conditions. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶¶32-33. Accordingly, we conclude that the officer was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function when he transported Blatterman to the hospital.
¶48 We now consider the third component: whether the officer's exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function was reasonable. Id., ¶40 (citing Kelsey C.R., 243 Wis. 2d 422, 24 No. 2013AP2107-CR ¶35). We consider the third component by balancing a public interest or need that is furthered by the officer's conduct against the degree of and nature of the restriction upon the liberty interest of the citizen. Id. (citing Arias, 311 Wis. 2d 358, ¶32). The stronger the public need and the more minimal the intrusion upon an individual's liberty, the more likely the police conduct will be held to be reasonable. Id., ¶41. We balance these interests by weighing four factors:
exigency of the situation; (2) the attendant circumstances surrounding the seizure, including time, location, the degree of overt authority and force displayed; (3) whether an automobile is involved; and (4) the availability, feasibility and effectiveness of alternatives to the type of intrusion actually accomplished. Id. (quoting Kelsey C.R., 243 Wis. 2d 422, ¶36).
¶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.
¶53 In considering the second factor, whether the time, location, and degree of authority and force displayed were appropriate under the circumstances, we refer to the information available to the officer at the time of the investigatory stop and observations by the officer subsequent to the stop. In Pinkard, we first note[d] that the officers did not control the time of day or location, but were responding to a phone call. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶49. Similarly, here, Blatterman's seizure stems from Nisius being dispatched in response to a phone call by Blatterman's wife. ¶54 Nisius and the other officers undeniably displayed overt authority and force when they stopped Blatterman and handcuffed him. This initial show of authority, exerted by three officers who were involved in the investigatory stop, was based on reasonable suspicion.16 Nisius placed Blatterman, handcuffed, in the back of his squad car while he waited for EMS 16 The involvement of several officers during the stop does not foreclose their exercise of a community caretaker function. In Pinkard, we held that officers reasonably exercised their community caretaker function when they entered and searched a residence for two unconscious individuals. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶2. After receiving an anonymous tip about the unconscious individuals, an officer thought the residence sounded like a drug house. Id., ¶54. We held that sending five officers from the unit that performed narcotics investigations was a reasonable precautionary measure to prepare for another eventuality. Id. 27 No. 2013AP2107-CR because it was very cold outside and Blatterman was wearing a short-sleeve shirt and jeans without a jacket or coat. Blatterman was transported to the hospital, following his refusal to accept medical treatment from EMS, because Nisius remained concerned. His concern was reasonable given Blatterman's wife's report that he had attempted to blow up his house by drawing gas inside; he possibly was intoxicated; he may have had thoughts of suicide; he failed to follow the officer's directives; and he had chest pain. ¶55 The degree of force and display of authority were reasonable given the officer's concerns for Blatterman's physical and mental health. Therefore, we conclude that the second factor favors the conclusion that the officer reasonably performed his community caretaker function.
¶56 The third factor addresses whether a person's privacy interests were being invaded while he or she was in a vehicle. Here, Blatterman's comments that his chest hurt could evidence a heart condition, and his wife had reported that he may have been drunk. Medical assessment of both concerns was required because if Blatterman were to have a heart attack or was intoxicated, he could cause harm to other drivers, as well as to himself. See Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶44. Furthermore, a citizen has a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile. State v. Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249, ¶31, 287 Wis. 2d 831, 707 N.W.2d 565. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the conclusion that the officer reasonably performed a community caretaker function. 28 No. 2013AP2107-CR
¶57 Under the fourth factor, we consider the feasibility and availability of alternatives to taking Blatterman to the hospital. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414, ¶45. Blatterman argues that calling the EMS was sufficient to address any medical concern. However, this alternative, which stops short of Nisius transporting Blatterman to the hospital, fails to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding Blatterman's stop. At the time that officers took Blatterman into custody, he had refused to comply with the officers' commands; the officers also were concerned about possible carbon monoxide poisoning, possible suicidal thoughts, and his chest pain. ¶58 As we have explained previously, [p]rinciples of reasonableness demand that we ask ourselves whether 'the officers would have been derelict in their duty had they acted otherwise.' Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶59 (quoting State v. Deneui, 775 N.W.2d 221, 239 (S.D. 2009)) (additional internal quotation marks omitted). For example, if the officer, despite the information relayed by dispatch and his observations of Blatterman during the investigatory stop, had facilitated no medical assessment and Blatterman or another member of the community were injured, Blatterman and others would have understandably viewed the lack of medical assessment as shoddy police work. Id. That Blatterman did not require treatment at the hospital for any physical or mental health issue is not relevant to our consideration. See id. (stating 'that, as it turned out, no one was injured is of no moment') (quoting State 29 No. 2013AP2107-CR v. Hedley, 593 A.2d 576, 582 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990)). Hindsight is often 20/20. Based on the circumstances relevant to this inquiry, we conclude that the fourth factor also weighs in favor of concluding that the officer reasonably exercised his community caretaker function. ¶59 We conclude that the officer was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function and that he exercised the community caretaker function reasonably under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, Nisius's transportation of Blatterman to the hospital was a lawful community caretaker function.