Opinion ID: 2328430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence

Text: The defendant first argues that the trial justice improperly denied her motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a warrantless entry `into her apartment. She maintains that the limited information known to the police just prior to their forced entry did not indicate that a life was in peril. Therefore, she claims, the situation did not rise to the level of exigent circumstances necessary to allow an exception to the constitutional requirement that the police obtain a warrant. The defendant further asserts that even if exigent circumstances were present, a warrantless entry was not justified absent probable cause, which she contends was not present. In her view, once inside, the police greatly exceeded the scope of a cursory search for security purposes when they lifted beds and opened kitchen cabinets. We disagree with defendant's assertions and take issue with the chronology of events that she suggests. An analysis of the admissibility of the evidence harvested in the search of defendant's apartment must begin with a determination of whether the police's entry was justified. It is well established that governmental searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by [a] judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment  subject only to a few well-delineated exceptions. Duquette v. Godbout, 471 A.2d 1359, 1362 (R.I.1984) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)). One such recognized exception is that of exigent circumstances, such as occurs in a police pursuit of an offender of whom they have probable cause to believe committed a known offense. Under the so-called emergency exception, this Court has recognized an expanded version of this doctrine to permit warrantless entry in an `emergency' requiring preventative action. Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1362. In Duquette, we held that forced entry was justified under the emergency exception when the police possessed information that a minor child was in peril inside an apartment from which screaming had been reported and where knocking and announcement by police had elicited no response. This doctrine requires that the officer have an objective, reasonable belief that his swift and immediate action is required to avert a crisis. State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073, 1075 (R.I.1989); Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1363 (citing State v. Benoit, 417 A.2d 895, 900 (R.I.1980)). The impetus of the entry is to preserve life and property. For this reason, the more stringent standard of probable cause is not required. That said, it is important to ensure that the intrusion was not merely a pretext to make an arrest or a search to seize evidence. Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1363. In the instant matter, entry into the apartment was made only after the police officers' presence had been repeatedly announced and ignored, a male occupant was seen attempting to exit from the rear of the apartment and then retreating back inside, and upon information from the neighbor that she had heard a commotion coming from the apartment. Based on the totality of the circumstances before them, and based on an inability to discern what situation had prompted the emergency call, the police acted rationally and properly in the interest of protecting citizens from bodily harm and property destruction. We agree with the trial justice's statements at the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence: I think the police would have been derelict in their duty not to enter those premises   . I'm satisfied that under the circumstances presented, there were exigent circumstances; that the officer had every right to get into that residence to insure that there was not foul play going on in there.    And I think that the officer did the appropriate thing. This Court is mindful that police are in the emergency service business and they usually have little or no time to leisurely consider their options or engage in protracted evaluation. Indeed, in this case it would have been unreasonable for the officers to simply walk away from the unanswered door given the 9-1-1 call and other facts known to them. [6] Indeed, a 9-1-1 call is one of the most universally recognized means through which the police learn that someone is in a dangerous situation and needs immediate help. The trial justice properly relied on Officer Martellini's testimony that he reasonably believed a life may have been in peril and that a potential crisis demanded decisive and immediate action. The record is devoid of suggestion that the police had any motive other than to respond to a call for help. Although the entry subsequently proved fruitful for evidence of cocaine, there is no indication that the police entered the apartment with any prior knowledge of drug or other criminal activity at that location. With respect to the items seized, including the bag of cocaine on the kitchen counter, the trial justice's denial of defendant's motion to suppress these items as being in plain view was proper. We approve the trial justice's ruling even under a more stringent standard of review, in light of the constitutional rights involved in this case and upon an independent examination of the facts, findings and record. See State v. Apalakis, 797 A.2d 440, 443 (R.I.2002); State v. Sundel, 121 R.I. 638, 644, 402 A.2d 585, 589 (1979). The officers conducted a cursory search throughout the apartment to learn who was present and what had prompted the emergency call. Although we are cognizant that general searches and seizures that consist `of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings' are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 6, of the Rhode Island Constitution. State v. Pratt, 641 A.2d 732, 738 (R.I.1994) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) and citing State v. Kowal, 423 A.2d 1380, 1382 (R.I.1980)), at no time during the initial cursory search did the officers conduct a more general, exploratory search. Furthermore, we note that there must be a legitimate need for the type of search conducted here, Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1362 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)), and the search must be carefully tailored to render only the perceived need for help and should not extend any further. Id. at 1363 (citing United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351,1355-56 (D.C.App.1983)). In light of the circumstances confronting the officers once inside the premises, including a dimly lit apartment and a hostile, uncooperative Tejada, the officers were justified in entering every room to take control of a potentially volatile situation and to ensure the safety of themselves and other unknown occupants. According to the testimony of Officers Martellini, Godin, and Cardarelli, it was only after a search warrant was obtained that the beds were lifted, clothes moved, and kitchen cabinets opened. Although defendant alleges that such activities took place before a search warrant was obtained, the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. We believe the trial justice was correct in relying on the officers' testimony and the evidence to the contrary. Under the plain-view doctrine, a police officer may seize evidence in plain view when he is lawfully in a position that allows him to see the evidence and it is immediately apparent to the officer that the object is evidence of criminality. Pratt, 641 A.2d at 738 (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). [7] In a plainview seizure case, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer would `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief    that certain items may be    useful as evidence of a crime. Pratt, 641 A.2d at 738 (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed2d 502 (1983)). We are convinced that the police reasonably believed that the bag on the kitchen counter contained illicit drugs. Upon discovery of the bag containing a white substance on the kitchen counter, Officer Godin testified that he immediately suspected that the bag contained cocaine. Officer Martellini agreed, and a subsequent field test confirmed their suspicions, thereby warranting that a search warrant be obtained. We therefore see no reason why the trial justice should have suppressed this evidence. Having determined that the officers properly discovered the cocaine in plain view on the kitchen counter, we believe that the search warrant was both necessary and obtained properly. The trial justice correctly found that [t]he search warrant was properly obtained, and the affidavit in support of it has ample probable cause set on it. Moreover, we are convinced that Officer Cardarelli took the necessary steps to obtain this lawful search warrant before further disturbing the contents of the apartment. The cocaine and drug paraphernalia seized were fair game to be used as evidence over the course of defendant's trial, irrespective of the reasons for the 9-1-1 call earlier that day.