Opinion ID: 773752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Investigatory Encounter

Text: 14 The appellants argue that the district court erred in ruling that they violated appellee's Fourth Amendment rights by extending an investigatory encounter based on suspicion that [appellee] posed a threat to himself or to the public safety due to his physical or mental condition. Appellants' Br. at 8. According to appellants, even though both officers admit that they did not possess a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing when they initially approached appellee's vehicle, they were nevertheless justified in detaining appellee under the officers' community caretaking function, in order to investigate appellee's physical and mental condition and competence to operate his motor vehicle. Id. at 8-10. Appellee disagrees, arguing that the trial court properly found that the officers were required to end the encounter and simply withdraw and survey, absent a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, 7 once appellee refused to answer any questions. Appellee's Br. at 8-9. 15 The Supreme Court discussed the community caretaking functions of police officers in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973)). In Cady, the Supreme Court held that a search of a trunk of a disabled car was not unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the local police officer conducting the search had not previously obtained a search warrant. Cady, 413 U.S. at 446. In so holding, the Court explained that local police officers frequently 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. The Court further stated that [t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by 'less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable. Id. at 447. The Eighth Circuit has recognized the existence of this community caretaking function. See United States v. Smith, 162 F.3d 1226, 1226 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Cady, 413 U.S. at 441; United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1560-61 (10th Cir. 1993)). 16 In United States v. King, 990 F.2d at 1560, the Tenth Circuit applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Cady to the seizure of an individual. The Tenth Circuit noted that police officers are not only permitted, but expected, to exercise what the Supreme Court has termed 'community caretaking functions.' Id. at 1560 (quoting Cady, 413 U.S. at 441). The King court further explained that [i]n the course of exercising this noninvestigatory function, a police officer may have occasion to seize a person . . . in order to ensure the safety of the public and/or the individual, regardless of any suspected criminal activity. Id. (citing United States v. Rideau, 949 F.2d 718, 720 (5th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds 969 F.2d 1572 (5th Cir. 1992)). 17 In the case of United States v. Rideau, the Fifth Circuit also adopted the community caretaking analysis. Rideau, 949 F.2d at 720. In that case, police officers asked for identification from an individual after they observed him stumble as he stepped from the road. Id. at 719. The individual, later identified as defendant Rideau, was wearing dark clothing and was standing in the road at about 10:30 p.m. Id. The Fifth Circuit held that the officers were justified in detaining Rideau, even without suspicion of criminal activity, noting that local police engage in 'community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.' Id. at 720 (quoting Cady, 413 U.S. at 441). 8 The Fifth Circuit, on rehearing, explained, Terry recognizes that '[e]ncounters are initiated by the police for a wide variety of purposes, some of which are wholly unrelated to a desire to prosecute for crime.' United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 13). 18 The Court finds that the reasoning set forth in King and Rideau is sound. King, 990 F.2d at 1560; Rideau, 949 F.2d at 720. In the instant case, the appellee argues that the police officers were required simply to walk away from appellee's vehicle, thus perhaps permitting a possibly intoxicated individual to drive the vehicle, 9 potentially harming himself and other citizens. The Court simply cannot conclude that the strictures of Terry and its progeny compel such a result. 10 Like the officers in Rideau, this Court finds that Officers Adams and Prahm would have been derelict in their duties had they not detained appellee Winters. Rideau, 949 F.2d at 720. Accordingly, this Court reverses the district court on this issue.