Court Opinion

ID: 9736596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:00:36.081583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:07.473070
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
I agree with the result of this decision but I cannot approve the standard set forth in United States v. Heliczer, supra. It is the word “frolic” which causes me to rebel against the Heliczer standard. “Frolic” means merriment, fun, or a playful mischievous action. Were the words “mission,” “act,” “enterprise,” or “quest” substituted for the word “frolic,” I could adopt said standard. The term “frolic” simply denotes too much leeway or professional flexibility on the part of an officer. My concern is that any officer may subjectively perceive his duty so as to enter private property and investigate while the facts could show that his subjective perception was not the objective perception of a reasonable man acting as an officer of the law under like circumstances.
I fear an encroachment by law enforcement officers upon private property under the guise of “investigating a crime.” If, indeed, time and circumstances permit, an officer should obtain a search or arrest war*815rant prior to going on private property to investigate. Obviously, if be is in the heat of the chase or is attempting to quell an on-going crime or disturbance such a procedure would not be required. I believe that law enforcement officers can trespass, just like any other citizen. Their badge must not be used as a shield to invade private property under a standard which has its perimeters between the performance of duty and a frolic.