Opinion ID: 901816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Emergency and Exigent Circumstances Exceptions

Text: [¶ 85.] Even without the community caretaker exception, police can respond and enter a home in emergencies to preserve life or property. Likewise, police can enter a home without a warrant with probable cause if the police reasonably believe that delay in procuring a search warrant would gravely endanger life, risk destruction of evidence, or greatly enhance the likelihood of a suspect's escape. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 24, 680 N.W.2d at 325. The majority opinion discusses these two exceptions at length. [¶ 86.] In this case, had the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to conclude someone was still in the house and was in danger of asphyxiation from the gas, they may have been justified in entering without a warrant under the emergency doctrine. For example, had the neighbor who approached the officers told them he saw five people go into the house but only saw four leave, the officers may have been justified in entering without a warrant. However, by permitting officers to enter the home without an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone was inside and in danger, this Court would be handing the police unfettered discretion to enter someone's home. The result could serve to undermine the thrust of the Fourth Amendment and the notion that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Id. at 324 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 586, 100 S.Ct. at 1380). The majority's expansion of the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment, through the standard adopted, goes too far and disrupts the balance between necessary police action and the constitutional protections afforded to South Dakotans. We should maintain the natural balance between these sometimes competing interests that weighs in favor of obtaining a warrant prior to entering an individual's home. This is especially so in this case where there was no objective basis to conclude a true immediacy that absolves an officer from the need to apply for a warrant was present. Washington, 573 F.3d at 287-88 (distinguishing Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1524). [¶ 87.] It is also interesting to note that under the facts of this case, there was no reason why the officers could not have secured the home and sought a search warrant. Had the officers added up all the cluesswapped gas meter, ammonia fumes, propane tank, Sudafed purchases, and freezer-hose-bucket contraptionthe officers would have had probable cause for a warrant. [¶ 88.] For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.