Court Opinion

ID: 9774258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:13:06.532575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:04.467821
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. What the police did here was to break into a man’s home. It is true that they did so rather politely, using defendant’s father as their arm, and not resorting to a sledge hammer, but the fact remains that they entered a man’s home, a cherished and well nigh sacred place to most of us, by force, without first obtaining a search warrant to do so.
This is being justified on the ground it was warranted by an emergency. In my opinion, we are providing a dangerous and alarming precedent here, one which will give the police extremely broad powers and which seriously reduces the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. We are developing a new doctrine for the police — the delayed response doctrine or once an emergency, always an emergency, with no need for a search warrant thereafter.
Wiser men than I have pointed out the dangers of relaxing Fourth Amendment standards.
As said in McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-56, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948):
“We are not dealing with formalities. The presence of a search warrant serves a high function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the citizen and the police. This was done not to shield criminals nor to make the home a safe haven for illegal activities. It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals. Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home. We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.”
See also, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 182, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1948) (per Jackson, J., dissenting):
“We must remember that the extent of any privilege of search and seizure without warrant which we sustain, the officers interpret and apply themselves and will push to the limit.

“And we must remember that the authority which we concede to conduct searches and seizures without warrant may be exercised by the most unfit and ruthless officers as well as by the fit and responsible, and resorted to in case of petty misdemeanors as well as in the case of the gravest felonies.”
The question before us is not simply whether there was an emergency making reasonable a warrantless entry and search of defendant’s home. The question is whether this particular warrantless entry, search and seizure can be upheld under the emergency doctrine in light of the almost *270two and a half hour delay by the officers. The proposed opinion does not address this critical difference between this case and those on which it relies. The latest United States Supreme Court case on the subject states: “[A] warrantless search must be ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ ” Mincey v. Arizona, - U.S. -, -, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2414, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).
Under part I, the opinion discusses the state’s contention that the entry was justified under the “need for help” or “emergency” exception, saying the circumstances gave probable cause to believe there was a medical emergency “in which someone might be ill or injured and in need of immediate help ” (emphasis supplied). Then the opinion refers to the rule of certain cases that whenever the police had reliable information of a death, an emergency exists sufficient to justify an immediate search, because apparent death may turn out to be barely surviving life, still to be saved. The opinion points out the odor of decomposing flesh indicated death of at least one person, but there were three persons missing and “one or more could have been in immediate need of help to prevent death.” But this justification was not acted on by the police for over two and a half hours. I fail to see how the belated warrantless entry made by the police can be justified as being appropriate under an emergency calling for immediate entry to help someone inside the house in need of immediate assistance.
The exigency of the situation when it first became apparent objectively, whether the police appreciated it or not, that something was seriously wrong inside the Epper-son house cannot be extended to, nor render reasonable, in my opinion, a forcible entry made several hours later, during which interval the police could have obtained a search warrant. What we are developing here is a new weapon for the police — the continuing exigency justification, where a delayed entry will be held to relate back to the original emergency, thus obviating the need for a search warrant even though there was ample time in which to obtain one.
Not only does such a doctrine fail to comport with the way reasonable people, including policemen, ordinarily react to emergency “need of help” situations, it means the police can safely delay entry, so far as entering legally is concerned. This is not calculated, in my opinion, to produce prompt action by the police in an emergency and this may delay legitimate investigation.1
In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) there was a lapse of one and a half to two hours between the initial appearance of the police investigator on the scene and the second appearance around 4:00 a. m. Then there was a third entry around 9:00 a. m. All three entries were held valid and a search warrant was not required. But the difference in the cases is that in Michigan v. Tyler the first entry was made at the time the emergency arose, while the smoldering embers of the arson were still being extinguished, and the court found that the subsequent warrantless entries mentioned above “were no more than an actual continuation of the first”, Id. at 511, 98 S.Ct. at 1951, not detached from the initial exigency. In the case at bar there was no entry at the initial exigency. The entry came several hours later, long after the objective indicia first suggested the possibility of death or need for help within the Epperson house.
In Patrick v. State, 227 A.2d 486, 489 (Del.Supr.1967), cited as supporting the action of the police, the court speaks in terms of the police duty “to act forthwith upon the report of the emergency”, not to miss the chance that “a spark of life remains”, as the basis for the emergency situation exception. In the Patrick case, the police “immediately entered the premises”, id. at 488, upon their arrival at the scene. In the *271present case, if there had been a spark of life existing at 9:15 a. m. (which is when the police first learned of the situation) in someone needing immediate aid, it would have died out long before the police finally entered at approximately 11:50 a. m.
People v. Brooks, 7 Ill.App.3d 767, 289 N.E.2d 207 (1972), also relied upon and discussed in the proposed opinion, likewise speaks in terms of an emergency which required “immediate action.” In the Brooks case, the janitor in the apartment building caused the police to be called. When they were going up the stairs to the deceased’s apartment they noticed the odor of decomposing flesh. When they got to the front door of the apartment the police opened the door and promptly went in and found the deceased (who had been dead for several days) on the couch in the living room. Id. at 210. There was no delay on the part of the police in acting. The Brooks case, id. at 213, quotes with approval the language of Mr. Justice Burger in Wayne v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 860, 84 S.Ct. 125, 11 L.Ed.2d 86 (1963), in which he stresses the duty of the police, when confronted by an emergency, to act and the need for swift police response in order to support what would otherwise be an illegal entry.
The facts in Brooks are significantly different from the facts in the present case, in which we have no such swift response. The police knew as early as 9:15 to 9:20 a. m. that Mrs. Smith noticed the odor of decomposing flesh in the Epperson house and that her son-in-law was acting suspiciously and that she had reason not to believe his explanations of the whereabouts of her daughter and two grandchildren.2
The state in its brief states that “speed was of the essence to bring aid to anyone who needed it . . .” But the police took no action then. Instead, as the facts related in the proposed opinion show, the police tried to figure out some way by which they could induce someone else to break in the house so that the entry would not be charged to them. It was almost noon, two and a half hours later, when the police finally entered the bedroom. If entry to the premises could be delayed this long, obviously there was no immediate need emergency. A true emergency does not invite delayed action. The two are mutually inconsistent.
Someone may say, however, that despite the delay by the police, the need for help and in that sense the emergency, continued throughout the period of delay. But the point is that if so, the justification for dispensing with a search warrant did not, because one could easily have been obtained during that time, as discussed later herein. If the police are confronted with an emergency they should act. If they choose to delay, then they should obtain a search warrant. They should not be permitted both to delay and to dispense with a search warrant. That is not what is called for by the Fourth Amendment.
Under part II, the opinion takes up the matter of objective standards, quoting from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) about whether the facts available at the moment of the search would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing what was done was appropriate. The moment of search here was shortly before noon, over two and a half hours after the officer had reason to believe there was a dead body in the house and that three people were missing. I do not believe a reasonable man would consider it was appropriate to wait two and a half hours and then enter the premises to see if there might be someone inside alive and in need of help.
The opinion then, still under part II, says that what the officers were doing was in good faith searching for persons missing under unusual circumstances. I agree. *272But a search for missing persons, while a serious matter,3 is not per se an emergency of the kind under discussion, nor did the police consider it such, as shown by the unhurried way in which they went about it.
The opinion states that the validity of the search must be judged on objective reasonableness, but then quotes Sgt. Duffner’s subjective thoughts “as far as [he] was concerned” that he really didn’t know what he had, that he was just looking to see “if they had skipped the country or they were injured or what.” There is no testimony in the record that Sgt. Duffner ever expressed these thoughts to anyone. In fact, he testified he did not think anyone was in the house, that he was not alarmed, but was extremely curious. The record shows that Duffner consulted several times during the morning with the chief of police, Chief Bol-li, as well as with Officer Schindler. Chief Bolli told them the police were not to break in the house. Much of the police discussion related to the possibility of getting defendant’s father to do the breaking in. There is no mention (except for Duffner’s thought to himself) of there being any need to break in because someone inside needed help and quickly.
As the proposed opinion states, the general rule is that an entry and search without a warrant is unreasonable and the burden is on the state to show an exception exists. The state has failed to do so. The “need for help” or “emergency” justification comes from the state as an afterthought to justify a belated entry. The officers were curious about what had happened to Epperson, his wife, and children. They wanted to enter the house to investigate, not to try to give first aid to someone who might be in dire circumstances.
Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered and seized after the unlawful entry should have been sustained. It is true this would result in a reversal and a new trial for a defendant who no doubt is guilty as charged. But we cannot disregard the Fourth Amendment in cases where to do so will benefit the defendant. Having seen fit not to act promptly upon the information furnished by Mrs. Smith, the police should have obtained a search warrant and entered the house legally. They could easily have done so. It was a weekday, Wednesday. The court house is located in Mexico. The magistrate, the circuit judge, and the prosecutor were close at hand. The police had control of the situation at the house because they were watching and standing guard over it. There was no need for them to break into defendant’s home two and one half hours later. They were in possession of facts which they should have presented to a neutral magistrate for his determination as to whether there was probable cause that a crime had been committed and that a search of the house was warranted. It is noteworthy that no suggestion is made by the state that a search warrant could not easily and conveniently have been obtained.
The recent Mincey decision, mentioned earlier, states: “There was no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant. Indeed, the police guard at the apartment minimized that probability. And there is no suggestion that a search warrant could not easily and conveniently have been obtained.” Id. at -, 98 S.Ct. at 2415. See, also United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 436 n. 24, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977), as follows: “Although law enforcement officials can often take action without a warrant when they have been unable to foresee the circumstances that eventually confronted them, they still must obtain a search warrant when their prior knowledge is sufficient to establish probable cause . . Here there can be no doubt that for a considerable period of time prior to their breaking into the house, the police officers had sufficient knowledge to establish probable cause. *273See also Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34-35, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970).
“The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948), as quoted with approval in Mincey v. Arizona, supra.
It is our duty to uphold defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, whether or not he is guilty. If we do not enforce the Fourth Amendment, no one will. Here defendant’s counsel carefully and properly raised the constitutional question and has preserved it throughout. The motion to suppress should have been sustained. I therefore respectfully dissent.

. To illustrate, the search for Epperson did not get under way until in the afternoon, hours after the emergency first came to the attention of the officers. The delay on the part of the police apparently enabled him to get a good head start, because, despite an extensive search, he was not arrested until ten days later, when he voluntarily surrendered.

. One analyzing me facts of this case finds himself returning again and again to the fact that Mrs. Smith noticed the odor of death — decomposing human flesh — in the Epperson house. It was this fact that made it apparent that something was very, very wrong in the Epperson house, as she made clear to the police in her initial report.

. In Mincey v. Arizona, supra, - U.S. at -, 98 S.Ct. at 2410, the court declined “to hold that the seriousness of the offense under investigation [there murder, assault and narcotics] itself creates exigent circumstances of the kind that under the Fourth Amendment justify a warrantless search.”