Opinion ID: 901816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrantless Entry into Home

Text: [¶ 12.] Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article VI, section 11 of the South Dakota Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 11, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319. Because defendant has not asserted and we have not found a basis to distinguish the protections afforded by the South Dakota Constitution from those provided by the federal constitution under the circumstances of this case, our analysis applies equally to both the state and federal constitutional provisions. State v. Schwartz, 2004 SD 123, ¶ 31, 689 N.W.2d 430, 437-38 (Konenkamp, J., concurring in result). [¶ 13.] The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only against unreasonable searches and seizures. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). In deciding whether a search or seizure was reasonable, [t]he touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 332, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2579, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (citations omitted). On the other hand, it is well established that `searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.' Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 22, 680 N.W.2d at 324 (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1380, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, 651 (1980)). `[P]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed[.]' Id. (quoting United States v. United States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972)). [¶ 14.] Generally, every law enforcement entry into a home for the purpose of search and seizure must be made with a warrant. Id. (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); State v. Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 50, 631 N.W.2d 603, 617). A warrantless search and seizure is permissible only if it satisfies a specific exception to the warrant requirement. Id. The State bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the warrantless search satisfied a specific exception. Id. ¶ 23; State v. Labine, 2007 SD 48, ¶ 14, 733 N.W.2d 265, 269. Constitutional challenges to a warrantless law enforcement search require a two-step inquiry: first, factual questions on what the officers knew or believed at the time of the search and what action they took in response; second, legal questions on whether those actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 23, 680 N.W.2d at 324-25; Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 50, 631 N.W.2d at 617 (Amundson, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Meyer, 1998 SD 122, ¶ 23, 587 N.W.2d 719, 724) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982)). Although we defer to the circuit court's fact findings, it is our duty to make our own legal assessment of the evidence to decide under the Fourth Amendment whether the officers' actions were objectively reasonable. State v. Nguyen, 2007 SD 4, ¶ 12, 726 N.W.2d 871, 875; Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 21, 631 N.W.2d at 610. The legality of a search will not depend on the motivations of the police officers involved in the search. Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 21, 631 N.W.2d at 610. Indeed, any asserted inconsistencies in an officer's actions, supposedly evincing subjective intentions or beliefs about the situation, are irrelevant to the objective assessment of whether the actions were reasonable. State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 274 (Iowa 2006).
[¶ 15.] We first examine the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement because that is the exception the State contends applies in this case. The exigent circumstances exception is widely recognized and has been consistently applied by this Court. Probable cause and exigent circumstances analysis pertains only when law enforcement officers are investigating criminal activity. United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.2006); People v. Davis, 442 Mich. 1, 497 N.W.2d 910, 920 (1993). For this exception to apply, law enforcement officers must possess probable cause that the premises to be searched contains the sought-after evidence or suspects. Quezada, 448 F.3d at 1007; Davis, 497 N.W.2d at 920. [¶ 16.] This Court's test for whether exigent circumstances exist asks whether police officers, under the facts as they knew them at the time, would reasonably have believed that delay in procuring a search warrant would gravely endanger life, risk destruction of evidence, or greatly enhance the likelihood of a suspect's escape. Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 25, 680 N.W.2d at 325 (citation omitted). If the officer is not executing a valid search warrant, a warrantless search and seizure is unreasonable absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. Swedlund v. Foster, 2003 SD 8, ¶ 42, 657 N.W.2d 39, 56 (citations omitted). [¶ 17.] Before we consider whether exigent circumstances existed, we must first decide whether the officers were acting in their crime investigation capacity when they entered defendant's home. See Quezada, 448 F.3d at 1007; Davis, 497 N.W.2d at 920. Both officers testified that they did not enter the home because they believed that methamphetamine was being manufactured there. Rather, they entered because they smelled ammonia fumes and wanted to make sure no one was endangered inside. Officers Zimbelman and Openhowski were found credible by the circuit court. Officer Openhowski maintained that before entering he had no clue that the house could contain a methamphetamine lab and was not intending to investigate a possible methamphetamine lab despite the fact that he saw the freezer with tubing while outside the back of the house. Officer Zimbelman similarly insisted that although the neighbor told him that defendant had been caught buying Sudafed, Zimbelman did not suspect a methamphetamine lab until after he was inside the residence. Both officers testified that they had not worked in narcotics during their careers and they had had little training in drug investigation. [¶ 18.] Unlike Hess, where we held that exigent circumstances warranted the intrusion when the officers were at a house to execute an arrest warrant and observed, through a window, two persons consuming what appeared to be a controlled substance, here the circuit court found that the officers entered the house in their non-investigatory capacity to make sure no one inside was overcome by ammonia fumes. See 2004 SD 60, ¶ 2, 680 N.W.2d at 317. The officers neither observed nor suspected that a crime was being committed inside the home and there were no claims by the officers, or findings adopted by the court, that support an entry based on the presence of a possible active methamphetamine lab. See United States v. Walsh, 299 F.3d 729 (8th Cir.2002) (intrusion warranted because of active methamphetamine lab). We also find distinguishable the plain smell cases the State cites to argue that the smell of an odor alone is sufficient to provide probable cause. Here, the officers did not believe that the smell of ammonia meant that a possible crime was being committed, i.e. the presence of an active methamphetamine lab. Because the officers did not enter the house in furtherance of a criminal investigation, the sole fact that the officers smelled ammonia cannot give rise to the application of the exigent circumstances exception.
[¶ 19.] The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement encompasses police entry for the purpose of arresting persons thought to be within or for the purpose of finding the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a past crime. That exception, as we have concluded, does not apply in this case. Courts also recognize, however, several exceptions to the warrant requirement where police entry is not for the purpose of investigating crime but for the purpose of preserving life or property. [¶ 20.] Here, the circuit court held that the officers' initial entry into defendant's home was lawful under the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement. This Court adopted the exception in State v. Rinehart, a case where an officer stopped a vehicle after becoming concerned that the driver might be experiencing a medical emergency. 2000 SD 135, ¶¶ 7-10, 617 N.W.2d 842, 843-44. Because here the officers smelled a chemical odor while standing outside defendant's residence, the court found that the overwhelming purpose of the officers in entering the house was to search for possible victims of the fumes. Defendant claims that the initial warrantless entry was unlawful because the officers used a well-being check as a pretext for gathering evidence of a crime and there was no emergency justifying the warrantless entry. [¶ 21.] The United States Supreme Court and multiple other courts have upheld a police officer's authority to enter a residence without a warrant when there is a reasonable belief that someone is in need of immediate aid. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). What has not been consistent, however, is which exception to the warrant requirement will permit an officer's warrantless entry into a residence under these circumstances. A review of the caselaw reveals a breadth of decisions discussing and applying various exceptions including the emergency doctrine, the emergency aid doctrine, and the community caretaker doctrine. [¶ 22.] Some of the avowed distinctions between these three doctrines can be frail, bordering on the meaningless. Neither have they been consistently applied, thus creating contradictory and sometimes conflicting doctrines. Some courts treat these exceptions interchangeably. Others declare that the community caretaker exception applies, but then use law applicable to one of the other exceptions, such as the emergency doctrine. Several courts have also held that the emergency aid doctrine is a subcategory of the community caretaker exception, while the emergency doctrine is a subcategory of the exigent circumstances exception. We will examine each exception and then determine whether, under the facts of this case, the warrantless entry into defendant's home was justified under any of the exceptions. We are not bound by the circuit court's legal conclusion about which exception, if any, applies. See Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d at 319; State v. Herrmann, 2002 SD 119, ¶ 9, 652 N.W.2d 725, 728.
[¶ 23.] The emergency doctrine, allowing warrantless entry into a home, has been specifically adopted and applied by the United States Supreme Court. Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392-93, 98 S.Ct. at 2414, 57 L.Ed.2d 290. In Mincey, the Court noted that [n]umerous state and federal cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Id. More specifically, the Court stated that [t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency. Id. (citation omitted). Relying on Mincey, a majority of courts have similarly adopted the emergency doctrine exception. [1] [¶ 24.] One of the most common tests applied for this exception by both state and federal courts was developed by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1976). [2] The three-part Mitchell test requires: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. Id. This test has been subject to much criticism and has been abrogated in part by the Supreme Court in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 402, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 1947, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). The criticism arose because the second prong delves into the officer's subjective motivations. In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that only objective reasonableness is required to support a warrantless entry. In Brigham, it made this requirement clear: an officer's subjective motivation will not invalidate an otherwise reasonable search. Id. at 404, 126 S.Ct. at 1947, 164 L.Ed.2d 650. Therefore, some courts have modified the Mitchell test to require only an objective analysis. [3] See State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454, 460 (N.D.2008). [¶ 25.] Massachusetts applies its own test for the emergency doctrine. It only requires that there were reasonable grounds for the ... police to believe (an objective standard) that an emergency existed. Snell, 705 N.E.2d at 243 (citation omitted). No subjective considerations are reviewed. While Rhode Island similarly does not consider an officers subjective intentions, it imposes a more demanding test. Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1362. Rhode Island requires that, first, the responding officer [must] have a reasonable belief that his assistance is required to avert a crisis; second, there must be a legitimate need for the performance of the search; third, the search must be `carefully tailored' to render only the perceived need for help and should not extend any further; fourth, in determining whether an `emergency' existed, consideration must be given to whether the purpose of the search would have been frustrated if the officers had been required to obtain a warrant; and fifth, the intrusion [must] not be a pretext to make an arrest or search to seize evidence. Id. (citations omitted). [¶ 26.] The emergency doctrine appears to be the exception most consistently applied. This doctrine, as applied to a warrantless search of a home, has support of the United States Supreme Court, unlike the community caretaker exception. While the Supreme Court has not declared precisely what standard or test should be used to gauge the reasonableness of a warrantless intrusion under the emergency doctrine, it is clear that the Court will not inquire into an officer's subjective intentions. [¶ 27.] To adhere to Fourth Amendment principles while allowing officers to protect the public in emergencies, we adopt the following test for the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement: (1) there must be grounds to believe that some kind of emergency exists that would lead a reasonable officer to act; and (2) the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which if taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the intrusion.
[¶ 28.] There are considerable similarities between the emergency aid doctrine and the emergency doctrine, and perhaps the distinctions are too fine to merit separate treatment. Nonetheless, several courts have adopted and applied this exception to the warrant requirement, distinct from the community caretaker exception. Other courts treat the emergency aid doctrine interchangeably with the emergency doctrine. Hotrum v. State, 130 P.3d 965 (Alaska Ct.App.2006) (declaring the emergency aid doctrine to be well-recognized, yet applying the test for the emergency doctrine); State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 686 P.2d 750 (1984) (terming the exception as the emergency aid doctrine, yet applying the emergency doctrine test); Ryon, 108 P.3d at 1039-40 (arguably applying the emergency doctrine, although termed the emergency assistance doctrine). [¶ 29.] Utah emphasizes that the emergency aid doctrine should be strictly circumscribed because the exception takes a significant departure from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by requiring neither a warrant nor probable cause as a prerequisite to a search. State v. Comer, 51 P.3d 55, 62 (Utah Ct.App.2002). Utah adopted a three-part test for the emergency aid doctrine. [4] New Hampshire similarly adopted a three-part test, which does not differ considerably from the test for the emergency doctrine, but is nevertheless a distinct test. [5] State v. Macelman, 149 N.H. 795, 834 A.2d 322, 326 (2003) (quoting Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 347 N.E.2d at 609). [¶ 30.] The Colorado Supreme Court also adopted an independent test for the emergency aid doctrine, which requires a `colorable claim of an emergency threatening the life or safety of another.' People v. Pate, 71 P.3d 1005, 1011 (Colo.2003) (citation omitted). The court requires the prosecution to prove the existence of `an immediate crisis and the probability that [police] assistance will be helpful.' Id. The test under the emergency aid doctrine, according to the Colorado court, is one of reasonableness requiring facts or circumstances showing that someone's life or safety is seriously threatened. Id. [¶ 31.] In Michigan, when the police are investigating a situation in which they reasonably believe someone is in need of immediate aid, their actions should be governed by the emergency aid doctrine, regardless of whether these actions can also be classified as community caretaking activities. Davis, 497 N.W.2d at 921. Michigan's version of the emergency aid doctrine allows police to enter a dwelling without a warrant when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Id. However, the officers must possess specific and articulable facts that lead them to this conclusion. In addition, the entry must be limited to the justification therefor, and the officer may not do more than is reasonably necessary to determine whether a person is in need of assistance, and to provide that assistance. Id. [¶ 32.] From our review of these cases, it appears that the emergency aid doctrine differs from the community caretaker exception in part on the fact that the title, emergency aid doctrine, presumes an existing emergency to warrant the intrusion. Otherwise, this doctrine, like the community caretaker exception, requires reasonableness on the part of the officers and circumstances warranting the intrusion. We agree with those courts holding that no useful distinction can be made between the emergency doctrine and the emergency aid doctrine. Both require, at their essence, an emergency.
[¶ 33.] The community caretaker exception has been recognized only in the context of automobiles by the United States Supreme Court. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). In Cady, the defendant's car was disabled as a result of a car accident and was later impounded. The defendant told law enforcement officers that he was a Chicago police officer. Because the officers knew defendant was required to carry his service revolver at all times, they subjected the car to an inventory search while it was impounded. The search revealed several bloody items, which later led the officers to the location of a dead body. [¶ 34.] In considering whether the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his vehicle was impounded, the Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional difference between homes and cars. Id. at 439-40, 93 S.Ct. at 2527, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (quoting Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970)). The Court also reiterated that [t]he ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Id. at 439, 93 S.Ct. at 2527, 37 L.Ed.2d 706. With the reasonableness standard and constitutional difference in mind, the Court held that the police legally impounded the vehicle. The basis for allowing the warrantless seizure was that police officers for want of a better term, can investigate an accident without a warrant in what may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. Id. at 441, 93 S.Ct. at 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706. [¶ 35.] Following the Supreme Court's lead, many jurisdictions have adopted the community caretaker exception when police impound a vehicle, conduct an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, or, as in South Dakota, stop a vehicle for a well-being check when there is a demonstrable reason to believe that a driver may be unfit to drive for medical or other reasons[.] [6] See Rinehart, 2000 SD 135, ¶¶ 7-10, 617 N.W.2d at 843-44. With Rinehart, an automobile case, being our only previous community caretaker decision, the present case poses a significant expansion of the community caretaker doctrine. In several other jurisdictions, this exception has not easily evolved into an exception applicable to homes. In fact, the Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as North Dakota, have declined to extend the community caretaker exception to residential entries because the Cady decision stressed the distinction between vehicles and dwellings. [7] These courts wish to maintain the constitutional distinction between cars and homes in applying this exception. See Cady, 413 U.S. at 439-40, 93 S.Ct. at 2527, 37 L.Ed.2d 706. [¶ 36.] Since, under the Fourth Amendment, the highest measure of protection is in the home, we must determine whether the warrantless entry into defendant's home under the facts of this case is an appropriate expansion of the community caretaker doctrine. Many courts have extended the community caretaker exception to the entry of a home. [8] But these decisions reveal how inconsistently the exception has been applied. [9] No single test has been adopted by a majority of courts. For example, in California the exception arises when [g]iven the known facts ... a prudent and reasonable officer [would] have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community caretaking functions. People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 981 P.2d 928, 937 (1999), cert. denied Ray v. California, 528 U.S. 1187, 120 S.Ct. 1240, 146 L.Ed.2d 99 (2000). Wisconsin developed a three-part test, with a four-part subtest, that asks whether there was a seizure, whether the police action was a bona fide community caretaking activity, and whether the public's need and interest outweigh the intrusion upon the individual's privacy. State v. Ziedonis, 287 Wis.2d 831, 707 N.W.2d 565, 570 (2005) (quoting State v. Anderson, 142 Wis.2d 162, 417 N.W.2d 411, 414 (1987) (automobile case)). [¶ 37.] Texas does not require specific, objective, and articulable facts supporting the intrusion, but instead asks (1) whether immediate government action was required; (2) whether the government interest was sufficiently compelling to justify a warrantless intrusion; and (3) whether the citizen's expectation of privacy was diminished in some way. Laney v. State, 76 S.W.3d 524, 529 (Tex.Ct.App.2002) (citing Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1523). Texas adopted its test after examining two non-community caretaking doctrine cases from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. [¶ 38.] Although the above courts have adopted specific tests for this exception, there are courts applying the community caretaker exception but using a test applicable to the emergency doctrine or the emergency aid doctrine. [10] In particular, the Washington Supreme Court declared that the community caretaker exception in an automobile search case arises when an `encounter made for noncriminal, noninvestigatory purposes is reasonable[.]' State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 373, 5 P.3d 668, 676 (2000) (citation omitted). Relying on this case, the Washington Court of Appeals extended the community caretaker exception to a home search. State v. White, 141 Wash.App. 128, 168 P.3d 459, 466 (2007). In White, however, the court applied the Washington Supreme Court's rule for the emergency aid doctrine. See id. (using Kinzy's three-part test for the emergency aid doctrine and not reasonableness test for the community caretaker exception). Maryland's test is also arguably the test for the emergency aid doctrine. [11] Alexander, 721 A.2d at 285. [¶ 39.] The Eighth Circuit applies the community caretaker exception. See United States v. Nord, 586 F.2d 1288, 1289 (8th Cir.1978); Quezada, 448 F.3d at 1007. And the Eighth Circuit has made clear that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to a determination whether the warrantless entry was justified. Some courts, on the other hand, specifically consider the subjective intentions of the officers conducting the search. See Ziedonis, 707 N.W.2d at 570; White, 168 P.3d at 467. Several courts, recognizing the inconsistent application of the warrant requirement exceptions, have advocated new approaches by extinguishing some exceptions. For example, after a thorough analysis of the community caretaker, emergency aid, and exigent circumstances exceptions, a Michigan court held that when the police are investigating a situation in which they reasonably believe someone is in need of immediate aid, their actions should be governed by the emergency aid doctrine, regardless of whether these actions can also be classified as community caretaking activities. Davis, 497 N.W.2d at 921 (emphasis added). The Virginia Court of Appeals, after recognizing the differences between the community caretaker exception and the emergency doctrine, similarly declared that any distinction between the two exceptions has been effectively eradicated in the Commonwealth. Kyer, 601 S.E.2d at 12. [¶ 40.] The Eighth Circuit case of Quezada provides a useful study. There, while serving papers and finding that no one answered the door, a deputy knocked on the door and though it was closed the latch was not engaged and the door swung open slightly. Through the gap in the door he saw lights on and heard a TV playing. He concluded that someone might be inside and that he or she was unable to respond. Once inside, the deputy found evidence of a crime. The court noted the difference between the standards that apply when an officer makes a warrantless entry when acting as a so-called community caretaker and when he or she makes a warrantless entry to investigate a crime. 448 F.3d at 1007. An officer acting in ways totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of criminal law ... may enter a residence without a warrant [upon] a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention. Id. (citations omitted). It is noteworthy, however, that the court concluded that the deputy entered the apartment to investigate a possible emergency situation. 448 F.3d at 1008 (emphasis added). [¶ 41.] From our review of the caselaw and scholarship on the community caretaker exception, we conclude that the constitutional difference between homes and automobiles counsels a cautious approach when the exception is invoked to justify law enforcement intrusion into a home. [12] Merely invoking a community caretaking purpose should not legitimize a search in a criminal investigation. Nonetheless, homes cannot be arbitrarily isolated from the community caretaking equation. The need to protect and preserve life or avoid serious injury cannot be limited to automobiles. And, indeed, as indicated above, in the totality of circumstances several courts have so held. See, e.g., Quezada, 448 F.3d at 1007. Taking the best insights from the diverse authorities dealing with this exception, several points bear consideration: the purpose of community caretaking must be the objectively reasonable independent and substantial justification for the intrusion; the police action must be apart from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of criminal evidence; and the officer should be able to articulate specific facts that, taken with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Another point gleaned from the caselaw is that the community caretaking function is more akin to a health and safety check. This is an important distinction because the emergency doctrine and the emergency aid doctrine implicate, as their titles denote, actual emergencies.
[¶ 42.] Applying the three exceptions dealing with aiding persons in need of assistance to this case, we must decide whether the State met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the warrantless entry satisfied the emergency doctrine, the emergency aid doctrine, or the community caretaker doctrine. Concededly, this is a close question. On the one hand, there were few facts to lead the officers to believe that someone was inside defendant's homeno shouts from inside, no claims from neighbors that children, family, or roommates might be inside, and no observations of the officers of someone inside. If the warrant requirement is to retain its viability, a merely officious concern that someone might conceivably need assistance to avert some undefined peril should not justify police intrusion into a private dwelling. On the other hand, there are times when lives may be in jeopardy if officers hesitate to act in potentially hazardous situations, and the key question here is whether there were sufficient reasons to act. Or, as one court alternatively phrased it, the question is whether the officers would have been derelict in their duty had they acted otherwise. See State v. Hetzko, 283 So.2d 49, 52 (Fla.Ct.App.1973). And [i]t must be emphasized that the fact that, as it turned out, no one was injured is of no moment. State v. Hedley, 593 A.2d 576, 582 (Del.Super.Ct.1990). [¶ 43.] We find helpful the decision in United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S.Ct. 1943. There, a police officer was called to an apartment building to investigate a complaint by neighbors of a strong chemical odor. On arrival, the officer recognized the odor as coming from a chemical which, the officer knew, was sometimes used in the making of methamphetamine. Determining that the odor originated from a certain apartment, the officer looked through the window and saw three men inside a room with very little furniture. Knowing the risk of explosion, the officer pounded on the door and eventually caused the defendant to open the apartment door, at which point the chemical odor became much stronger. The officer entered the apartment and the three men fled. After the defendant was apprehended, the officer notified the apartment manager and assisted him in evacuating the other residents and turning off open flames. Then he entered the apartment and found a drug lab. Cervantes, 219 F.3d at 890-91. [¶ 44.] The Ninth Circuit in Cervantes held that the search could be justified under the emergency doctrine, by which police are permitted to respond to emergencies as part of their community caretaking functions. Id. at 889. The analysis used in Cervantes, was later modified per Brigham City, to generate a two-prong test that asks whether (1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement officers had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm; and (2) the scope and manner of the search were reasonable to meet the need. Id. at 889. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2008). [¶ 45.] Although we cannot definitively proclaim that the situation here matched the type of emergency in Cervantes and for that reason the emergency doctrine and the emergency aid doctrine should not apply herethe odor of a noxious gas nonetheless merits further inquiry if police are to fulfill their roles as community caretakers. That leads us to another instructive opinion. In Ray, a plurality of the California Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant or exigency to allow the admission of evidence discovered by police officers engaged in a community caretaking function. 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 981 P.2d at 935. In that case, officers received a call reporting that the door at a certain address had been open all day and that the place was in shambles. They went to the residence and repeatedly knocked and announced their presence. No one answered. Concerned that someone inside might be injured, disabled, or unable to obtain help, the police entered the residence, conducted a seven-to eight-minute security check in which no interior doors or containers were opened, and observed in plain view drugs and money. Based on these observations they obtained a search warrant and seized evidence that led to defendant's prosecution for possessing controlled substances. Defendant, who owned the residence, moved to suppress. [¶ 46.] In examining the exceptions to the warrant requirement, the plurality in Ray ruled that because there were no facts to lead a reasonable officer to believe that immediate entry was necessary to aid life or limb, the entry was not justified under the emergency aid doctrine. Id. at 934. Nonetheless, the entry was permissible under the community caretaker exception, as the officers were justifiably concerned that an injured person was inside the residence, rendering lawful the sighting of contraband in plain view. Id. at 938-39. Under the community caretaker exception, circumstances short of a perceived emergency may justify a warrantless entry to preserve life or protect property. Id. at 934. The appropriate standard is one of reasonableness: Given the known facts, would a prudent and reasonable officer have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community caretaking functions? Id. at 937. The Ray court balanced the considerations regarding an officer's investigatory and non-investigatory capacities: in responding to a possible burglary, the function was, of course, investigatory. With respect to the presumably innocent victims of possible crimes, where persons or property may be in danger, the police intervention was non-investigatory. Id. at 937 n. 4. [¶ 47.] Here, the circuit court found that the officers' initial entry into defendant's home was justified, not as part of a criminal investigation, but in pursuance of their community caretaking function. [13] The court's findings of fact are supported by the record. Neighbors had complained about strange gas odors on the block. The gas company had been called twice, and a company employee went to the area looking for a gas leak. The employee detected the presence of a stronger chemical odor in the vicinity of defendant's home. The police were summoned when it was discovered that the gas meter had been illegally switched at the defendant's house. The company employee told the officers of his discovery and of seeing two people leave the house. Both officers also smelled chemical fumes, which they identified as ammonia. One officer knocked on the front door of the house, but received no answer. In the meantime, the other officer walked around defendant's home and noticed a freezer with tubing extended from it. This appeared odd to the officer, so he opened the freezer, whereupon he saw another container inside. He also discovered that the back door was unlocked. Finding nothing else remarkable, he joined his fellow officer at the front of the house. A neighbor arrived at the scene and told one officer that defendant had been caught at Kmart buying Sudafed and was also seen bringing a propane tank into the house. The neighbor said that there had been strange gas odors in the neighborhood and the gas company had been called before. [¶ 48.] Shortly after gathering all this information, the officers knocked on defendant's front door again. They testified that when they were standing in front of the house they could smell the odor of ammonia. [14] They decided to check to make sure nobody was incapacitated inside. The gas company employee did not know if there was anyone still in the home. Based on the officers' detection of ammonia, a gas the officers knew from their personal experience was toxic, the citizen complaints about strange gas fumes in the area, the fact that the house was wide open [and] unsecured, with the back door left unlocked and the front door left open, and only the storm door shut but unlocked, the officers decided to enter defendant's home. [¶ 49.] These circumstances presented a crucial moment of judgment for the officers. Should they act to ensure no lives are in danger? As many courts have acknowledged, police officers are not only permitted, but expected, to exercise what the Supreme Court has termed `community caretaking functions.' Winters v. Adams, 254 F.3d 758, 763 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1560 (10th Cir.1993)). Professor LaFave observed, [d]oubtless there are an infinite variety of situations in which entry for the purpose of rendering aid is reasonable. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, 3 Search & Seizure § 6.6, p. 396-400 (3d. ed. 1996). Modern society has come to see the role of police officers as more than basic functionaries enforcing the law. From first responders to the sick and injured, to interveners in domestic disputes, and myriad instances too numerous to list, police officers fulfill a vital role where no other government official can. Lives often depend upon their quick exercise of pragmatic wisdom. Constitutional guarantees of privacy and sanctions against their transgression do not exist in a vacuum but must yield to paramount concerns for human life and the legitimate need of society to protect and preserve life. Mitchell, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 347 N.E.2d at 611. [¶ 50.] Indeed, these officers may have been justly criticized later had they failed to check for people inside and had an injured or dead person later been discovered. As Justice (then Judge) Warren Burger once wrote, People could well die in emergencies if police tried to act with the calm deliberation associated with the judicial process. Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963). Although we cannot term the circumstances here an indisputable emergency, given the known facts, prudent and reasonable police officers would have reasonably perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of their community caretaking functions. The touchstone of [] analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' Terry, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S.Ct. at 1878-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). We think it was objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances of this case for the officers to be concerned about the possible dangers of ammonia fumes sufficient to permit them to enter the residence solely to check to make sure nobody was incapacitated inside. [¶ 51.] It is noteworthy, though not necessarily persuasive, that police entries into residences for non-investigatory purposes have been upheld in arguably less serious circumstances. Under the community caretaker exception, courts have upheld police entry into apartments without a warrant after receiving complaints that water was leaking into the apartments below. See United States v. Boyd, 407 F.Supp. 693, 694 (S.D.N.Y.1976); State v. Dube, 655 A.2d 338, 339 (Me.1995). In Rohrig, police responded to early morning complaints about excessive noise at the defendant's home. 98 F.3d at 1519. As the police approached, they could hear loud music from a block away. After arriving at the house, the officers banged on the front door and tapped on the windows to no avail. Unable to rouse anyone inside after repeated pounding on doors and shouting to get someone's attention, two officers opened an unlocked screen door and went in. They found the stereo and turned down the volume. In the same room, they found Rohrig asleep. While in the home the officers also came upon wall-to-wall marijuana plants. [¶ 52.] Although characterizing the facts as fitting within the exigent circumstances exception, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that [h]aving found that an important `community caretaking' interest [abating a nuisance] motivated the officers' entry in this case, it concluded that their failure to obtain a warrant does not render that entry unlawful. Id. at 1523. The court noted that the officers were not acting predominantly to enforce the law. Rather, they were acting for the purpose of abating a nuisance and restoring the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their homes and neighborhood. Id. at 1521. Using a reasonableness standard, the court determined that the Fourth Amendment's concerns in a criminal context are not implicated when police officers act to perform their community caretaking functions. [15] [¶ 53.] Rohrig himself, the court ruled, compromised his expectation of privacy by projecting loud noises into the neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning and then failing to respond to the officers. Id. at 1521-22. The officers in Rohrig faced a common community caretaking function: resolving a neighborhood dispute. [16] In our case, there had been complaints of strange gas odors in the neighborhood. When the gas company responded, it was determined that the gas meter at defendant's home had been tampered with. Although the officers arrived initially in response to a possible theft, as the circuit court later found, the matter evolved into a legitimate community caretaking function that predominated over any criminal investigation: concern that someone inside the home may be in jeopardy from ammonia fumes. The probable source of the fumes was defendant's house, where both the officers and the gas company employee smelled ammonia fumes. [¶ 54.] In pursuing their community caretaking purpose, the officers' initial intrusion was minimal. They cracked open the unlocked storm door to call inside, only then to discover that the smell of ammonia fumes became much stronger, thus warranting further inquiry. In the totality of circumstances, under the standard of objective reasonableness, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the responding officers acted justifiably for the welfare of possible persons inside the residence. The officers adequately articulated their concerns, and their search in the house, lasting a matter of minutes, was limited to looking for people inside. [17] Therefore, under these particular facts, we conclude that the circuit court's ruling should stand: the community caretaker exception applies to the warrantless entry into this home. [18]