Opinion ID: 1152888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress the Evidence Found in His Trailer.

Text: Defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his trailer during the execution of a search warrant. He argues that an earlier illegal warrantless entry disclosed evidence that was later used, in part, to obtain the search warrant. The state contends the earlier warrantless entry was justified as a welfare check on the other children known to live at the trailer. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Similarly, the Arizona Constitution provides that [n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8. To fulfill these constitutional requirements, courts usually require the government to obtain a search warrant before it can search a person's home. However, courts have also created exceptions to the requirement of a warrant under certain circumstances. One of those exceptions is the emergency aid exception, which permits police to enter a home without a warrant in the reasonable, good-faith belief that there is someone within in need of immediate aid or assistance. See State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 240, 686 P.2d 750, 763 (1984), and numerous federal and state authorities cited therein. The emergency aid exception focuses on public welfare or safety, and it may be invoked without regard to whether the police have probable cause to obtain a warrant. Id. The reasonableness of a police officer's entry under the emergency aid exception is a question of fact for the trial court. Id. at 238, 686 P.2d at 761. We will not disturb the trial court's ruling on appeal absent clear and manifest error. State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 523, 809 P.2d 944, 948 (1991). In Fisher, this court set forth three factors for appellate courts to use in evaluating when a warrantless entry is justified under the emergency aid exception: (1) whether police have reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency exists and that someone needs assistance for the protection of life and property; (2) whether the search is primarily motivated by intent to arrest or to seize evidence; and (3) whether there is a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the place to be searched. 141 Ariz. at 237-38, 686 P.2d at 760-61. We examine each of these factors.
The record supports the trial court's finding that the police had a justifiable concern about the welfare of the other children. An officer observed the condition of Rachel's body at the hospital. He discussed the case with hospital staff. Angela Gray's explanation about what happened to Rachel did not comport with Rachel's injuries. The officer knew that defendant had left the hospital to check on the other three children and had not returned. He then contacted a police sergeant and advised her that Rachel's death was suspicious and that officers should go to the trailer to check on the welfare of the other children and preserve any scene that might be at the trailer. When officers arrived at the trailer, no vehicle was found. The officers knocked on the door; no one answered. The door was unlocked, so the officers entered the trailer to search for the children. During that time, they saw, but did not seize, a bloody towel on the couch. They were in the trailer for about ninety seconds, just long enough to determine that the children were not present.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a warrantless search must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). If the police actions exceed those necessary to meet the exigencies, assertions that they were motivated by the exigencies alone must be strictly scrutinized. Fisher, 141 Ariz. at 239, 686 P.2d at 762. The officers stayed in the trailer for approximately ninety seconds, only long enough to look for the children. They saw a bloody towel on the couch but did not disturb it or search for other evidence. Instead, they secured the trailer and waited for sheriff's officers to take other action. See id. (holding warrantless entry under the circumstances to be reasonable when police were inside for no more than two minutes). The evidence confirms that the officers' primary motivation in entering the trailer was to protect the welfare of the children. C. Reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the place to be searched The officers had reasonable grounds to associate the emergency with defendant's trailer. Angela Gray told the officer that defendant had returned to the trailer to check on the welfare of the other children. This, combined with the fact that she told them a suspicious story, gave the officers reasonable grounds to check the trailer to ensure the safety of the other children. Because the officers' warrantless entry was justified under the emergency aid exception, the entry was lawful. Therefore, the information concerning the bloody towel that the officers saw in plain view upon searching the trailer was permissibly used, along with other evidence, to obtain a search warrant. Because we conclude that the original warrantless entry was proper, we do not reach the state's alternative argument that the evidence later seized pursuant to the search warrant was also admissible under the independent source doctrine.