Court Opinion

ID: 9689897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:49:22.340911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.615316
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
¶ 25. (dissenting). Although the police conduct in this case seems reasonable, it does not qualify under the community caretaking function as interpreted and applied in State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 652, 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997).
¶ 26. In Dull, we acknowledged that "the deputy may have properly monitored [the juvenile] as [he] proceeded into the house, down the stairs and to [Dull's] closed bedroom door." Dull, 211 Wis. 2d at 663. We recognized that that was "as far as [Washington v.] Chrisman [455 U.S. 1 (1982)] took the deputy." Id. Consequently, we held that "Chrisman does not justify *32what the deputy did in this case" — opening the bedroom door. Id. at 662-63 (emphasis added).
¶ 27. In Dull, as in Chrisman, a law enforcement officer was monitoring the movements of a person in custody. Despite that fact, this court concluded that "the deputy's separate decision to open [the juvenile's older brother's] bedroom door" was within neither the proper scope of such monitoring nor the proper scope of the community caretaker function. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d at 660-63. In the instant case, the circumstances do not even include the monitoring of a person in custody. Thus, if anything, Ferguson's arguments are stronger than those offered by the appellant in Dull.
¶ 28. The majority has struggled, unsuccessfully I think, to distinguish Dull in order to support the police conduct in this case. Although I appreciate the majority's effort, I am hopeful that the supreme court, should it have the opportunity to examine the instant case, will take a different approach and, in doing so, will consider the serious problems Dull brings to the real world of policing.
¶ 29. This case is a difficult one and, as the majority has explained, the police conduct seems so prudent for so many reasons. Indeed, I am quite uncomfortable withDuZZ's implication that the community caretaking function can be so certainly segmented — from hallway to room or, in this case, from room to closet. Lives depend on police "erring," if at all, on the side of safety for those desperately needing help, lying behind closed doors.1
*33¶ 30. Still, until the supreme court says otherwise, Dull must be followed carefully. Because, under Dull, the police search — of the closet, at the very least — was improper, I reluctantly and respectfully dissent.

 Thus, I share the concurring opinion's concern that had the police failed to act as they did, a life might have been lost. Therefore, only delicately disagreeing with the majority, I voice added concern about what I view as the dangers flowing from State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 652, 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997).