Opinion ID: 2165030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: application of community caretaking exception

Text: Having adopted the exception and in keeping with its narrow applicability, we next consider under what circumstances the exception should apply. In Smith, the Court of Appeals assess[ed] the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop, including `all of the objective observations and considerations, as well as the suspicion drawn by a trained and experienced police officer by inference and deduction. . . .' [12] Other jurisdictions recognizing and applying the community caretaking exception have adopted similar standards. [13] We likewise adopt this standard. In considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop, including Groves' objective observations and considerations based upon his training, as well as our de novo review, we conclude Groves' stop of Bakewell was reasonable under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment. The record indicates the incident in question occurred at 3:15 a.m. There was little or no traffic present on this stretch of highway at the time of the incident. Bakewell's vehicle stopped or slowed considerably five times within approximately 90 seconds while traveling down the highway, with the vehicle eventually pulling off onto the shoulder of the road. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for Groves to conclude that Bakewell was lost or that something was wrong with Bakewell, his vehicle, or inside his vehicle. Further, particularly given the early hour of the morning, it was reasonable for Groves to assume that his assistance might be welcomed. In fact, after approaching Bakewell's vehicle, the first question posed by Groves was whether Bakewell was all right, to which Bakewell responded that he was lost. Our conclusion that Groves' actions were reasonable is consistent with decisions applying the exception in other jurisdictions. The court in State v. Martinez [14] held that the community caretaking function was implicated where a driver was stopped at 2 a.m. for traveling at a rate of speed less than 10 miles per hour. In State v. Rinehart, [15] the community caretaking function was found applicable where a vehicle was traveling at an estimated speed of 20 to 25 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour zone. Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment, it was reasonable for Groves to approach Bakewell's vehicle. Bakewell's assignment of error is without merit.