Opinion ID: 1782827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Community Caretaker Function

Text: ¶ 19 The community caretaker function has its origins in Cady. [7] In Cady, the police had conducted a warrantless search of Dombrowski's vehicle following an accident. Cady, 413 U.S. at 442, 93 S.Ct. 2523. The search was conducted according to standard police protocol. Law enforcement attempted to locate a service revolver that Dombrowski, a Chicago police officer, was known to possess. Law enforcement did so in order to to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver would fall into untrained or perhaps malicious hands. Id. at 443, 93 S.Ct. 2523. The court noted that taking possession of Dombrowski's vehicle had been necessary to remove the vehicle from the road because it was causing a hazard, and Dombrowski was unavailable to move it himself, due to his intoxication and the injuries he suffered in the accident. Id. at 442-43, 93 S.Ct. 2523. Based on these circumstances, the court held that the police conduct was justified under the following rationale: Local police officers . . . frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, 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. 2523. ¶ 20 We first discussed the community caretaker exception to the prohibition against seizures that were not based on probable cause in Bies v. State, 76 Wis.2d 457, 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977). In Bies, the issue was whether a police officer reasonably seized certain evidence of theft under the plain sight doctrine. Id. at 463, 251 N.W.2d 461. There, the officer came upon the evidence while investigating a noise complaint; he was not involved in investigating theft. We noted that: Checking noise complaints bears little in common with investigation of crime. As a general matter it is probably more a part of the community caretaker function of the police which, while perhaps lacking in some respects the urgency of criminal investigation, is nevertheless an important and essential part of the police role. Id. at 471, 251 N.W.2d 461. Even though the officer in Bies did not have a warrant for his investigation of the garage where evidence of a crime was observed, we concluded that his conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because he had a lawful reason to look into the open garage door under his community caretaker function of investigating a noise complaint. Id. at 471-72, 251 N.W.2d 461. ¶ 21 Subsequently, the court of appeals set out a three-step test for evaluating claims of police community caretaker functions in Anderson I, which we conclude provides a satisfactory analysis. Anderson I explained this test: [W]hen a community caretaker function is asserted as justification for the seizure of a person, the trial court must determine: (1) that a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment has occurred; (2) if so, whether the police conduct was bona fide community caretaker activity; and (3) if so, whether the public need and interest outweigh the intrusion upon the privacy of the individual. [8] Anderson I, 142 Wis.2d at 169, 417 N.W.2d 411. This three-step test was applied in the lead opinion in Kelsey C.R., 243 Wis.2d 422, ¶ 35, 626 N.W.2d 777, and it has been applied in subsequent court of appeals opinions. See, e.g., Ziedonis, 287 Wis.2d 831, ¶ 14, 707 N.W.2d 565; State v. Paterson, 220 Wis.2d 526, 533-34, 583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct.App.1998).