Opinion ID: 2552193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Record Supports Emergency Exception

Text: Hall argues that the Superior Court erred because it applied a general reasonableness standard, instead of applying the Guererri test to assess the legality of the search of Hall's residence. Hall bases this argument on the Superior Court's closing comments from the bench: So taking everything into account, that is, the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that it was reasonable for the police, having arrived at the scene of a bona fide emergency and having entered a dwelling in order to deal with that emergency, and rightly so, but for the police having gone in, who knows what would have happened, the police were within the bounds of reasonableness to have given the first floor of the residence a once-over before they left. The record reflects, however, that the Superior Court applied the Guererri test. During the suppression hearing, the following exchange occurred: The Court: So sort of the first and second [ Guererri ] prongs [are] not so much where the line is drawn, the line is drawn over whether there was a reasonable basis, and you say approximating probable cause to associate the emergency with the area that was searched, the emergency in the living room with the kitchen which was searched, that's where you are? Defense counsel: That is correct. The Superior Court then stated: I'm going to take a break now because I want to actually reread Guererri very carefully. After a recess, the Superior Court explained, in part: The question becomes can they conduct a quick sweep of the residence, and in particular the back room on the first floor of the kitchen to see if anyone else is there. And although in this case, unlike Guererri, no one had suggested that there was anyone in the back, in this case, unlike Guererri, the police knew that they were dealing with a violent situation, or at least they had probable cause to believe, not just something approximating probable cause, but they had probable cause to believe there was a violent domestic altercation between the first two people that they confronted in the place. Accordingly, the record reflects that the Superior Court did apply the three-part Guererri analysis to the facts of this case. Hall argues that the State did not satisfy the second part of the Guererri test[t]he search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. [17] The trial judge accepted the officers' testimony that the search was not primarily motivated by those ends. [18] The record reflects that the officers directed their community caretaking function at insuring the health and safety of any people that might be found in the searched area, given, among other things, the 911 hang-up call, the various screams that could be heard from outside the house, and evidence of violence as indicated by Hall's injury. The Superior Court's acceptance of the officers' explanations is a credibility determination that is entitled to deference on appeal. [19] Accordingly, we hold that the Superior Court properly applied part two of the Guererri test. Hall also argues that the State did not satisfy the third part of the Guererri test[t]here must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. [20] Under the facts of this case, the officers were justified in performing a limited sweep of the first floor of the residence. The 911 hang-up call raised concerns about whether someone else may have been in the residence. Officer Smack testified that it sound[ed] like a small party was going on inside, based on all the screaming and yelling that was going on, which suggested that Hall and Congo may not have been the only people in the house. Smack also testified: [W]hen we were initially knocking on the door, I heard a female voice come from the door in the close vicinity to where we were, and then I heard a female voice screaming in the far side of the residence, which was one of the reasons why I was unable to ascertain if that was Ms. Congo's voice both times or not. Congo was very agitated, and Hall had a fairly deep gaping wound on the side of his face. Under these circumstances, the police officers were justified in conducting not only a search of the premises to find people in need of aid, but also a protective sweep to ensure that no further danger [wa]s present. [21] Other courts have held that a 911 hang-up call, alone, may provide grounds for a protective sweep of the premises from which the call originated. [22] Accordingly, we hold the Superior Court properly applied part three of the Guererri test. Finally, Hall argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion and made clearly erroneous findings by relying on facts that were not in evidence. Specifically, Hall argues that because [t]here was no testimony that the reason for the search was to check the stove, backdoor or dogs, the Superior Court erred in relying on those facts. The Superior Court did not rely on those facts in its decision. In its supplemental letter, the Superior Court explained that those concerns were not articulated by the officers who testified, [but] they bring into more specific relief the reason why a sweep makes sense under the circumstances. The basis for the Superior Court's ruling, however, was that the police officers were justified in conducting a limited sweep to make certain no one else, especially another injured adult or child, was left behind.