Opinion ID: 874901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exigent circumstances justified blubaum and watson's entry into the apartment

Text: The evidence Smith seeks to suppress was discovered during the later search of his apartment pursuant to his consent. Smith's consent was based on the evidence already obtained from his apartment. A finding that it was illegally acquired would render his subsequent consent ineffective. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment applies to firefighters as well as police officers. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 506, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1948, 56 L.Ed.2d 486, 496 (1978); State v. O'Keefe, 143 Idaho 278, 283, 141 P.3d 1147, 1152 (Ct.App.2006). Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. State v. Anderson, 140 Idaho 484, 486, 95 P.3d 635, 637 (2004). The burden of proof is on the state to show that the search either fell within one of the well-recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement or was otherwise reasonable under the circumstances. Id. Among the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception. State v. Holton, 132 Idaho 501, 504, 975 P.2d 789, 792 (1999). The exception applies where the facts known at the time of the entry indicate a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 509, 98 S.Ct. at 1949, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498. A. Initial entry by Blubaum Blubaum's entry was justified by the exigencies of the situation. According to the United States Supreme Court, a burning building presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry reasonable. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 509, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498. Even after the fire is out, a prompt determination of its origin may be necessary to prevent its recurrence. Id. at 510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498. Firefighters may enter a building without a warrant to fight a blaze and, after extinguishing it, may remain for a reasonable time to investigate its cause. Id. The exigency in this case was a threat of fire rather than an actual fire, but the principle is the same. See O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 285, 141 P.3d at 1154 (finding that there may be a need for immediate investigation to detect continuing dangers). Both Blubaum and Watson testified that the couch fire could have extended into the structure without necessarily being visible. The burn marks in the stairway carpet corroborated their testimony. According to Blubaum, smoldering can occur in walls or floors or under carpets for hours or days after something else has been on fire in an apartment. Although Blubaum saw no flames or smoke, the facts known to him indicated there was an appreciable, immediate risk of fire within the building. The presence of multiple tenants in the building compounded the urgency. See Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 297 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 641, 649 n. 8, 78 L.Ed.2d 477, 486 (1984); Tyler, 436 U.S. at 510 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. at 1950 n. 6, 56 L.Ed.2d at 499 n. 6. So long as the claim of exigency is not a pretext, courts avoid second-guessing the decisions of officials who reasonably believe they are confronting an urgent situation. State v. Monroe, 101 Idaho 251, 255, 611 P.2d 1036, 1040 (1980), vacated on other grounds, 451 U.S. 1014, 101 S.Ct. 3001, 69 L.Ed.2d 385 (1981); [1] O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 283, 141 P.3d at 1152. Blubaum did not enter on pretext. His purpose was to ensure that the fire was out and determine its cause. This function serves a compelling public interest. See Clifford, 464 U.S. at 293, 104 S.Ct. at 647, 78 L.Ed.2d at 484. The circumstances confronting Blubauma recently-doused couch in the driveway, a trail of soot and burn marks, an absent tenant, bystanders' lack of knowledge about how the fire started, multiple tenants in the building, and a landlord's request to investigate, combined with his own knowledge about how fire can persist and spreadwere sufficiently exigent to render his entry objectively reasonable. [2] In Tyler, the United States Supreme Court rejected the view that the exigency justifying a warrantless entry ends, and the need to get a warrant begins, with the dousing of the last flame. 436 U.S. at 510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498. [3] Smith argues that the holding of Tyler that a firefighter may remain in a building to investigate the cause of a fire after entering to extinguish it does not apply because Blubaum entered after the fire had been extinguished. The distinction does not aid Smith. The fact that the fire was extinguished by someone other than the firefighter indicates a need to investigate to ensure that it will not rekindle. This is especially so when the tenant who attempted to extinguish the fire was absent and the fire appeared to have persisted in his absence. B. Investigative entry by Watson and Cox According to Smith, even if Blubaum's entry was reasonable, any further entry was illegal because Blubaum had already determined the fire was out. The district court agreed, holding that the subsequent entry by Chief Watson and Officer Cox was illegal because any exigency dissipated when Blubaum left the apartment. A warrantless search may not exceed the scope of the exigency that justified its initiation. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413-14, 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 300 (1978); State v. Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho 96, 99, 57 P.3d 807, 810 (Ct.App.2002). Once the exigency has ceased additional entries generally require a warrant. See Tyler, 436 U.S. at 511-12, 98 S.Ct. at 1951, 56 L.Ed.2d at 499-500. The aftermath of a fire often presents exigencies even though the fire is extinguished. Clifford, 464 U.S. at 293, 104 S.Ct. at 647, 78 L.Ed.2d at 484. Prompt determination of the cause and origin of a fire serves a compelling public interest. Id. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment not only permits warrantless entries for the purpose of fighting a fire but also allows fire officials to remain for a reasonable time to determine the cause of the fire in order to prevent its recurrence. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498. If something caused a fire once, it may cause it again if the cause is not determined and remedied. Fire officials may come and go in the course of responding to a single incident. See Clifford, 464 U.S. at 293 n. 3, 104 S.Ct. at 646 n. 3, 78 L.Ed.2d at 484 n. 3. Such reentries are permissible even after the fire is out so long as they are an actual continuation of the initial entry and not clearly detached from the exigency. See Tyler, 436 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. at 1951, 56 L.Ed.2d at 499. This determination is largely factual because the circumstances of particular fires vary widely. Id. at 510 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. at 1950 n. 6, 56 L.Ed.2d at 499 n. 6. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has provided guidance in Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford , both of which involved the application of this rule to particular facts. In Tyler, fire crews responding to a fire in the middle of the night found evidence of arson. A police detective arrived as the fire was being extinguished but had to discontinue his investigation at 4:00 a.m. because it was too dark to see through the smoke and steam. 436 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. at 1951, 56 L.Ed.2d at 499. The detective and the fire chief returned about four hours later to continue their investigation in the daylight. Id. The Supreme Court found the later entry a continuation of the earlier entry and therefore permissible. Id. Subsequent entries several days later, however, were ruled unconstitutional because they were detached from the initial exigency and warrantless entry. Id. Clifford, decided by a plurality several years after Tyler, involved similar circumstances. An arson investigator made a warrantless entry six hours after an early morning fire was extinguished. 464 U.S. at 290, 104 S.Ct. at 645, 78 L.Ed.2d at 481. In contrast to Tyler, however, there was no investigation to be continued. The fire had been extinguished and firefighters left the scene hours before the arson investigator first arrived. Id. The delay was attributable to the arson investigator's schedule rather than conditions caused by the exigency. Id. By the time the investigator arrived, the owner had already engaged work crews to begin securing the house. Id. The Court found that these facts separated the subsequent investigation from the initial exigency, and a warrant or other authorization was required. Id. at 296-97, 104 S.Ct. at 648-49, 78 L.Ed.2d at 485-86. It is clear that Watson was continuing Blubaum's initial investigation. Once Blubaum was lawfully inside the apartment, he was permitted to remain there for a reasonable time, not only to ensure that the fire was out, but to investigate its cause. The fact that Watson replaced Blubaum during the process is of no constitutional significance. A superior officer's decision to take over the investigation does not clearly detach the remainder of the investigation from the subordinate's initial inspection. Likewise, the fact that Blubaum met Watson outside rather than waiting for Watson to join him in the apartment is immaterial. Blubaum left the apartment because he saw through the window that Watson had arrived, not because he had concluded a full investigation. The entries were only minutes apart. The only purpose served by requiring Blubaum to remain inside the apartment would be to remove any doubt about the legality of Watson's later entry. Watson's presence in the apartment was a continuation of Blubaum's initial entry. Watson was lawfully present in the apartment. Smith has not raised any argument that a police officer cannot accompany a firefighter responding to a fire. Cf. State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554, 560, 21 P.3d 491, 497 (Ct.App. 2001) (holding that police may follow in the footsteps of firefighters responding to an emergency). Although Smith characterizes Cox's entry as opportunistic, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Officer Cox entered the apartment on pretext. Watson asked Cox to accompany him, and Cox had no reason to suspect the presence of contraband until after he entered. Neither Cox nor Watson acted outside the scope of the justification for the entry. Watson confined his search specifically to the area where the couch had been. Cox remained in the vicinity of the front door. The pipe and seeds were in plain view. See State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146, 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998) (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). Smith argues that Cox exceeded the scope of the exigency when he picked up the pipe to smell it, relying on Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which holds that items in plain view may not be moved for closer examination without probable cause. Hicks is inapplicable because the incriminating character of the pipe and seeds was immediately apparent. Horton, 496 U.S. at 136, 110 S.Ct. at 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d at 123. Because Watson and Cox were lawfully present in the apartment, their knowledge of the presence of marijuana was not illegally obtained.