Opinion ID: 2214297
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balance of interests

Text: ¶ 41 The third step requires us to determine whether the officers' exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function was reasonable. Id., ¶ 40. To make this determination, we balance the public interest or need that is furthered by the officers' conduct against the degree and nature of the intrusion on the citizen's constitutional interest. Id. 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. ¶ 42 In balancing these competing interests, we consider four factors: (1) the degree of the public interest and the exigency of the situation; [13] (2) the attendant circumstances surrounding the [search], 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, 626 N.W.2d 777). ¶ 43 We look to Ziedonis and Shane Ferguson for guidance on applying the first factor to an officer's warrantless entry into a residence. In Shane Ferguson, as we explained briefly above, officers responded to a 911 call about a fight and encountered an intoxicated juvenile who let them into the apartment. Shane Ferguson, 244 Wis.2d 17, ¶¶ 2-3, 629 N.W.2d 788. Once inside, the officers saw several other intoxicated juveniles, one of whom was ill and vomiting. Id., ¶ 4. The officers became concerned about a bedroom that was locked from the inside because they feared that additional underage persons were in the bedroom, either ill or passed out. Id., ¶ 5. After about 30 minutes of knocking-and-announcing their presence and yelling with no response, the officers jimmied the lock and entered the bedroom. Id. ¶ 44 In Ziedonis, the officers responded to a complaint of animals running at large. Ziedonis, 287 Wis.2d 831, ¶ 2, 707 N.W.2d 565. Upon arriving at the house, the officers encountered two vicious dogs that they tried unsuccessfully to corral. Id., ¶ 3. A neighbor informed the officers that the dogs' owner lived in the back portion of the house and that he was home. Id., ¶ 4. The officers made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the occupant, including sounding sirens and air horns and using a loud speaker to announce their presence. Id. Through a glass storm door, the officer thought he saw something wrong with the person inside. Id., ¶ 5. Out of fear for the safety of the occupant the officer opened the unlocked storm door and entered the residence. Id. (internal quotations and brackets omitted). ¶ 45 In both Ziedonis and Shane Ferguson, the court concluded that the officers reasonably exercised a bona fide community caretaker function in the context of a home. Id., ¶ 34; Shane Ferguson, 244 Wis.2d 17, ¶ 16, 629 N.W.2d 788. In comparing its case to Shane Ferguson, the Ziedonis court noted that in both cases there was a significant public interest in ensuring the safety of the occupants because the officers could not ascertain their physical condition and reasonably concluded that assistance was needed. Ziedonis, 287 Wis.2d 831, ¶ 29, 707 N.W.2d 565. ¶ 46 The case before us is analogous to Shane Ferguson and Ziedonis in that the officers entered Pinkard's home out of concern for the safety of Pinkard and his companion. Further, as in Shane Ferguson and Ziedonis, the officers here did not know the physical condition of Pinkard and his companion and reasonably concluded that the situation required intervention. See id. ¶ 47 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. This exigency weighs in favor of concluding that the entry of the home was reasonable. As Shane Ferguson explained, the fear that an occupant was severely intoxicated was an exigent situation weighing in favor of the officers' entry into the locked room. See Shane Ferguson, 244 Wis.2d 17, ¶ 16, 629 N.W.2d 788. ¶ 48 Since the public has a substantial interest in police ensuring the well-being and safety of citizens who may be suffering from a drug overdose or were the victims of a crime, and attached to both concerns are considerable exigencies, the first factor favors the conclusion that the officers' community caretaking function was reasonably exercised. ¶ 49 In considering the second reasonableness factor, we assess whether the `time, location, the degree of overt authority and force displayed' were appropriate under the circumstances. Kramer, 315 Wis.2d 414, ¶ 41, 759 N.W.2d 598 (quoting Kelsey C.R., 243 Wis.2d 422, ¶ 36, 626 N.W.2d 777). We first note that the officers did not control the time of day or location, but were responding to an anonymous tip. See Horngren, 238 Wis.2d 347, ¶ 15, 617 N.W.2d 508. We recognize that in Shane Ferguson and Ziedonis the amount of time that passed prior to entry was significant. See Shane Ferguson, 244 Wis.2d 17, ¶ 5, 629 N.W.2d 788 (waiting about 30 minutes prior to entering); Ziedonis, 287 Wis.2d 831, ¶ 28, 707 N.W.2d 565 (waiting about 90 minutes prior to entering). However, in light of a more severe medical concern at issue here, that is, a possible drug overdose, waiting 30 minutes was not feasible. ¶ 50 The court in Horngren recognized this. Horngren, 238 Wis.2d 347, ¶ 15, 617 N.W.2d 508. In Horngren, the officers were responding to a suicide threat that the court noted had obvious exigency. Id. Almost immediately upon arriving, and without knocking and announcing their presence, the officers entered the front door of the apartment. Id., ¶ 3. As soon as the door opened, a struggle ensued between the officers and Horngren. Id. The court concluded that the immediate no-knock entry was reasonable in light of the officers' belief that Horngren was in danger of death or physical harm. Id., ¶ 17. ¶ 51 The situation the officers faced here is similar to that in Horngren in regard to the effect time had on their actions. The officers believed that the occupants of Pinkard's residence were in danger of death or physical harm; therefore, it was not unreasonable for them to wait only 30-45 seconds prior to entering. See id. Further, the officers exercised more restraint than those in Horngren in that they loudly knocked and announced their presence before entering the house and again before entering the bedroom. ¶ 52 An additional factor here that was not present in Horngren, Shane Ferguson or Ziedonis, is the condition of the entry door to Pinkard's residence. It was standing three-quarters open, and the bedroom door was open as well. One could reasonably conclude that if Pinkard and his companion were able to provide privacy for themselves, they would have done so by closing the entry door. The open doors could be reasonably interpreted to indicate Pinkard's and his companion's inability to look after their own interests. ¶ 53 Pinkard argues that arriving at his residence with five Gang Unit officers demonstrates unreasonable force and overt authority. We do not agree. As we have explained, an officer is charged with both law enforcement and community caretaker functions. Kramer, 315 Wis.2d 414, ¶ 32, 759 N.W.2d 598. 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.... Therefore, from the point of view of the officer, he or she must be prepared for either eventuality.... Id. ¶ 54 Here, the circuit court found that the officers entered Pinkard's residence because they were concerned about the health and safety of the occupants. This demonstrates the officers' concern for the occupants. However, Osowski admitted that Pinkard's house sounded like a drug house. Accordingly, sending five officers who belong to the Gang Unit, which performs narcotics investigations, was a reasonable precautionary measure to prepare for another eventuality. ¶ 55 We further note that there is no indication that any of the five officers employed any force or drew their weapons. The officers' search was limited to minimize the intrusion into Pinkard's home. Upon entry, the officers' went straight to the bedroom in which they saw the occupants from their position at the doorway; the officers did not enter any other rooms of the residence. Therefore, we conclude that the second factor weighs in favor of concluding that the officers' exercise of the community caretaker function was reasonable. ¶ 56 Under the third factor, we consider whether an automobile was involved in the exercise of the community caretaker function. Id., ¶ 44. Such a consideration is relevant because [i]n some situations a citizen has a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile than in his or her home. Anderson, ¶ 42 Wis.2d at 169 n. 4, 417 N.W.2d 411. This is not a relevant factor here except to recognize that one has a heightened privacy interest in preventing intrusions into one's home. ¶ 57 Finally, we consider the feasibility and availability of alternatives to entering Pinkard's residence without a warrant. Pinkard argues that the officers could have telephoned the house or checked with the neighbors to determine whether an emergency situation existed. We agree that a number of alternatives were available, but none were feasible in light of the circumstances. See Horngren, 238 Wis.2d 347, ¶ 15, 617 N.W.2d 508 (While there were a number of less intrusive alternatives available, those less intrusive means, under the circumstances in this case, were simply not feasible.). ¶ 58 If Pinkard and his companion had indeed been victims of a crime or were suffering from a cocaine overdose, both reasonable inferences based on these facts, telephoning the house would have been a fruitless exercise because the individuals would not have been capable of answering the officers' phone call. Similarly, the officers could have checked with Pinkard's neighbors to determine whether they had seen anything suspicious; however, this was not a feasible option here in light of the exigency perceived by the officers. ¶ 59 Principles of reasonableness demand that we ask ourselves whether `the officers would have been derelict in their duty had they acted otherwise.' Deneui, 775 N.W.2d at 239 (quoting State v. Hetzko, 283 So.2d 49, 52 (Fla.Ct.App.1973)). Indeed, if the officers had done otherwise, perhaps by leaving the scene to obtain a warrant or waiting for an ambulance to arrive, we are convinced the citizens of the community would have understandably viewed the officers' actions as poor police work. Further, `[i]t must be emphasized that the fact that, as it turned out, no one was injured is of no moment.' Id. (quoting State v. Hedley, 593 A.2d 576, 582 (Del.Super.Ct.1990)). Therefore, we conclude that the fourth factor favors concluding that the officers reasonably exercised their community caretaker function. ¶ 60 Because three of the four factors weigh in favor of concluding that the officers reasonably performed their community caretaker function, the third step has been satisfied. ¶ 61 Accordingly, we conclude that the officers' warrantless entry into Pinkard's residence constituted a search, that the officers were engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function and that the community caretaker function was reasonably exercised under the totality of the circumstances.