Court Opinion

ID: 9672878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:13.070039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.883754
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion. Contrary thereto, I would hold that the motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of the Sutton house should have been sustained. I also would hold that it was error to admit in evidence, over objection, the fruit and product of the unlawful search and seizure. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.
The critical issue in this case is the propriety of the entry by Officers Lindsay *489and Marshall into the unoccupied Sutton home at about 10:45 p. m. on July 22, 1967, when they arrived there after the ambulance driver had picked up Lonnie Sutton to take him to the hospital.
The principal opinion holds that the entry by the officers and the subsequent search and seizure were permissible under what it describes as the emergency or exigency rule. I will discuss that rule and its applicability subsequently, but in order clearly to delineate the narrow issue presented it is necessary to note various conclusions arrived at in the principal opinion, as follows:
1. This was not an entry and search and seizure pursuant to a search warrant. There was no search warrant.
2. The search and seizure were not contemporaneous with and incidental to a lawful arrest. The defendant was not at the Sutton home at that time and was not even arrested until later that night at another location.
3. The opinion does not rely on consent by Sutton to justify the search. This clearly is so because the principal opinion says: “In this case the inference of a consent to search and seize is somewhat tenuous, Lonnie in his extremities was in fact asking for help, and it is not necessary to a decision of this appeal to consider this phase of the arguments.” 1
4. This is not a situation where the items seized were in plain view of the officers before entering. The principal opinion does not base its result on any clear view doctrine, and the sheriff testified specifically that he could not, from outside the house, see the items later seized. It was necessary for the officers to open the screen door, cross the porch, and cross the living room before the articles could be seen in the kitchen through the doorway between the living room and kitchen.
5. The entry was not justified on the basis that the officers entered because they thought that Lonnie Sutton was lying in the house in need of medical attention. This is made clear by the principal opinion when, after referring to various cases cited by the state, it says: “These are the cases upon which the state relies but the factual situation here is not comparable to any of those cases, the appellant was not present, there was no observation of a crime, she was not arrested and the only reasonable inference from the officers meeting the ambulance is that Lonnie was no longer in the house and certainly not then in need of the officers’ assistance.”
6. This was not a case of hot pursuit. The statement from the principal opinion quoted in the preceding paragraph clearly discloses this and shows that the court’s holding was not based on any such theory.
*490After eliminating as a basis for the entry and search the exceptions enumerated in the above paragraphs, the opinion then holds that the entry, search and seizure were lawful and reasonable under the emergency or exigency rule, and that the court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress or in admitting into evidence the fruits of the search. In reviewing the validity of these conclusions, we start with the proposition that warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. This was a warrantless search and the question, therefore, is whether this search and seizure falls within the so-called emergency or exigency exception. In determining this question, we must recognize that the cases establish that where the government seeks to justify a warrantless search on the basis that it falls within some exception to the rule requiring a search warrant, the burden of proof to establish that some exception is applicable rests on the government. Thus, in McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153, the court said: “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.” (Emphasis supplied.) Likewise, in United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59, the Supreme Court again emphasized the requirement of a search warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and then said, 342 U.S. 1. c. 51, 72 S.Ct. 1. c. 95: “Only where incident to a valid arrest, United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950), or in ‘exceptional circumstances,’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948), may an exemption lie, and then the burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948).” (Emphasis supplied.) The question, then, is whether the state sustained its burden of proving that this entry and search falls within the exception on which the opinion relies, namely, the emergency or exigency rule.
The transcript discloses that the defendant filed a motion to suppress items obtained in the search and seizure of the Sutton home. Counsel for defendant, in support of the motion, offered a portion of a letter which he had written to the circuit judge which contained a recital of certain facts, and which the state stipulated could be received in evidence as an agreed statement of facts on the motion to suppress. That stipulation was as follows:
“Facts: During the evening of July 22nd, 1967, George M. Collier, an Ambulance operator, of Louisiana, Missouri, received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as Lonnie Sutton, the deceased. The caller stated that his wife had shot him and he needed help in a hurry. Collier called J. W. Lindsay, Marshall for the City of Louisiana, advised the Marshall of the call and obtained directions to reach the Sutton home. Marshall Lindsay was undressed at the time. He called Sheriff Marshall’s home by telephone and the Marshall responded by radio. Lindsay proceeded to the Sutton home and on the way there met the Collier ambulance returning. Upon reaching the Sutton home, Lindsay waited for the Sheriff near the Sutton house. When the Sheriff arrived a few minutes later, Sheriff Marshall and Marshall Lindsay who had been informed by radio from Collier’s ambulance that he had found Sutton lying in the kitchen, entered the Sutton home and there conducted a search which disclosed a Twenty-two, single shot, bolt action rifle, some empty beer cans, an unfired Twenty-two caliber cartridge, some clothing, etc. The officers did not have a *491search warrant at the time of their entry into the Sutton home. The title to the property referred to as the Sutton home is in an estate by the entirety, Lonnie J. Sutton and Helen Sutton, husband and wife. Helen Sutton is the Defendant in this cause. No one was present at the time of the search of the Sutton residence except the officers, James M. Marshall and J. W. Lindsay. No arrest was made until sometime subsequent to the search.”
In addition to the above, the transcript shows the following additional stipulation on the motion to dismiss:
“MR. MILLAN: If the Court please, Mr. Glenn in his memorandum to you on November 20, 1967, has set forth on page one a set of facts and the State will stipulate that those facts therein are true, but I would like to add that when Mr. Collier, the ambulance driver, was called he also had conversation with a telephone operator who had been obviously working with Mr. Sutton trying to find out what he wanted and then when he got to the Sutton home, Mr. Collier did, the line was still open and he again had conversation with the telephone operator about this very same thing. I don’t think there is any controversy on that statement that I have made.
“THE COURT: Is that stipulated to, Mr. Glenn?
“MR. GLENN: Yes, sir. I don’t see its materiality, but I am perfectly willing to stipulate to it.”
The defendant put the sheriff on the stand and proved by him that prior to opening the door and entering the house, he was unable, from outside the house, to observe any of the articles which he later took into his possession. The defendant offered no further evidence and the state offered no evidence.
The cases upon which the principal opinion primarily relies as establishing that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to justify the entry under the emergency doctrine are the cases of Davis v. State, 236 Md. 389, 204 A.2d 76; Patrick v. State, Del., 227 A.2d 486; and Stevens v. State, Alaska, 443 P.2d 600. In Davis a body partly covered by debris was discovered by a real estate agent who was looking for a “For Sale” sign which was supposed to be posted. The agent called the officers, who came at once. They observed severe lacerations and contusions about the head and body and a discernible trail of blood leading from the body to the back porch and back door of the house. The officers knocked on the door but received no response. They then looked in a window and saw the feet of someone apparently lying down, but a partition blocked a further view of the person. The officers then forced open the door and entered, where they found defendant asleep on a couch. It was his feet which were visible through the window. There were blood stains on the sheet and other articles and the house indicated a struggle had occurred. The officers arrested the defendant and then seized numerous items which were later used as evidence in the prosecution.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, while recognizing the general requirement of a search warrant as a condition to entry and search, held that on the factual situation presented the entry was authorized by the emergency situation. In so holding, the court said, 204 A.2d 1. c. 80:
“ * * * In considering the entry upon the Davis’ property it is clear that the police were acting in pursuance of their duty to investigate a reported death. Thus, the status of these officers upon the curtilage of the property was not that of trespassers. Furthermore, in light of the gory scene which confronted the police in the back yard of the Davis’ home, their duties with regard to investigation of the death of the person found there commanded that they determine whether more than one person had been victimized in the carnage which had obviously taken place.
*492“We find that the entrance of the police officers into the house was reasonable under the circumstances then existing in order to determine whether the feet which were seen therein by Lt. Denell were those of a person in distress, immediate aid to whom might, under similar circumstances, have preserved a human life. Basic humanity required that the officers offer aid to the person within the house on the very distinct possibility that this person had suffered at the hands of the perpetrator of the homicide discovered in the back yard. The delay which would necessarily have resulted from an application for a search warrant might have been the difference between life and death for the person seen exhibiting no signs of life within the house. The preservation of human life has been considered paramount to the constitutional demand of a search warrant as a condition precedent to the invasion of the privacy of a dwelling house.”
The court, having found that the entry was proper, justified the search which followed as incidental to the arrest of the accused.
In Patrick v. State, supra, one Larrimore, looking for his employee, Woods, entered the latter’s house and found him “in bed, a bloody 'mess,’ with his head ‘beaten in with a brick.’ ” Larrimore panicked upon making this discovery and, being unable to tell whether Woods was dead or alive, called the police. When they arrived, Larrimore told them Woods had a head wound and might be dead. The officers entered immediately and found that Woods was in fact dead. The officers seized various items, later used as exhibits, which were in plain view in the bedroom where Woods was found. The Delaware Supreme Court overruled defendant’s contention that the exhibits received in evidence were obtained by unlawful search and seizure. It did so on the basis that the emergency or exigency rule was applicable in this factual situation. In so holding, the court said, 227 A.2d-1. c. 489:
“Applying these tenets to the instant case, we have no doubt that the entry of the police was reasonable under the circumstances. The officers were informed by Larrimore that Woods was dead or dying from a head wound. Clearly, the police had good reason to believe that a life was in balance and that emergency aid might be needed. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the police to act forthwith upon the report of the emergency— not to speculate upon the accuracy of the report or upon legal technicalities regarding search warrants. It follows that the entry by the police was reasonable and lawful.”
The court went on to point out that after the lawful entry, the officers made no further search, but simply seized items which were in plain view in the room.
In Stevens v. State, supra, the defendant, during the evening, shot and killed a drinking buddy in his home in Hoonah, Alaska, a small frontier village on an island off the coast.of southeastern Alaska. A neighbor notified the chief of police of Hoonah, who then went to the Stevens house and knocked on the door. Defendant’s wife opened the door and, although no words were spoken by anyone, admitted the chief to the house. Defendant was sobbing, saying he had killed his buddy, and he was threatening to take his life. The chief arrested the defendant and took him to jail. He and the mayor of the village then returned to the house, viewed the body and premises, and then locked the house with a padlock. Defendant’s wife, who was walking the streets and was hysterical, also was confined.
The mayor then (about 3:00 a. m.) called the state police in Juneau and was advised to keep the house padlocked. The next day the state police and the district attorney came from Juneau. They then went to the Stevens house with the chief of police *493and entered the house. They photographed, took measurements, and seized items such as the gun, cartridge clip, shells, etc., which were in plain view in the room.
At the trial the defendant conceded that the original entry into the house without a search warrant by the chief of police was legal, and no attack thereon was made. Instead, defendant’s contention was that the subsequent entry of the house ten hours later by the chief, the state police and the district attorney, when defendant and his wife were not present, violated the unreasonable search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment and the provisions of the Alaska Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Alaska holds that the chief of police, when he originally entered in what is conceded by defendant to be a valid entry, had a duty to inspect the premises, and had he done the photographing, measuring, and seizing of articles at that time, no constitutional rights would have been violated because everything was in plain view. The court went on to point out the remoteness of the village, the lack of trained personnel to investigate in such a place, the length of time required for others to reach the village, and holds that the lapse of ten hours did not convert what otherwise would have been a lawful investigation into a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. One judge, concurring in the opinion, justified the seizure as an incident to the arrest, holding that the lapse of time did not change that situation.
I am in agreement with the principal opinion that the emergency doctrine is a proper one and should be adopted in this state as an exception to the need of a search warrant where circumstances reasonably indicate to an officer the existence of an emergency situation which calls for immediate entry of the premises. For example, where an officer has good reason to believe that a life is endangered and emergency aid may be needed, such an emergency would justify entering the house without a search warrant. That was the situation which existed in both Davis v. State and Patrick v. State, and I agree with both of those decisions. I also agree with the dictum of Judge Burger in Wayne v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 318 F.2d 205, 212: “But a warrant is not required to break down a door to enter a burning house to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.”
With reference to Stevens v. State, I do not consider it at all persuasive or relevant on the facts here presented. It involves a situation wherein it was conceded by the defendant that the original entry by the officers was proper and valid. In contrast, in this case the propriety of the entry is the very issue which the defendant from the outset has vigorously contested. In Stevens the issue was whether the delay of ten hours before the officers continued the examination of the house and seized the articles made the search and seizure bad. That is not the issue here.
My disagreement with the principal opinion relates not to the validity of the emergency rule, but to the sufficiency of the evidence on the motion to suppress to justify application of the emergency doctrine in this case. In my view, that evidence, all of which is recited heretofore in this dissent, simply does not bring this case within the emergency or exigency doctrine. The officers knew that the wounded man had been moved from the premises before they arrived at the house. The officers themselves did not testify at all on the motion to suppress and there was no evidence from any source that they entered the house because they thought someone else might be there in need of help. There was nothing comparable to the situation in Davis v. State, where the officers, after finding a mutilated body in the *494yard, looked in the window and saw the feet of someone lying inside the house who might also be in need of emergency medical attention. There was absolutely nothing to indicate, using the language of Patrick, that “the police had good reason to believe that a life was in balance and that emergency aid might be needed.” In short, there is not one word of testimony from the officers, or anyone else, of any emergency or exigency which existed, or which the officers believed existed, on' which they might have relied in entering the house on the theory that an emergency justified entry without a search warrant.
Nor do Federal cases cited in the principal opinion as having articulated in some fashion a recognition of the emergency doctrine justify application of that exception in this case. For example, in United States v. Barone, 2 Cir., 330 F.2d S43, the entry by officers without a search warrant was justified in the opinion on the basis they had heard loud screams coming from a rooming house in the dead of night, and that they properly, under such circumstances, knocked and entered to investigate. That situation is not comparable.
In Wayne v. United States, supra, Judge Burger discussed the legality of entry by the police into the defendant’s apartment. He had performed an abortion on a girl and later reported to her sister that he thought the girl was dead. The sister then fled from the apartment and notified police that her sister was in the doctor’s apartment. Judge Burger’s opinion states that the police thought she probably was dying or unconscious but did not know that the girl was dead. Subsequently, Judge Burger states that they were justified, in such emergency situation, in entering the doctor’s apartment without a search warrant. The case was decided on other grounds, with no other judge concurring in the above discussion of whether the entry was justified under the emergency doctrine. However, even if Judge Burger’s dictum had been adopted as part of the opinion, the factual situation there was completely different from that here presented, and Wayne would not be any authority for holding that the entry by the officers into the Sutton house was justified on the basis of an emergency. In Wayne the girl was still in the doctor’s apartment, either dead or dying or unconscious, and arguably an emergency existed. Nothing like that was present here. The officers knew that Lonnie Sutton had already been placed in the ambulance and taken to the hospital.
In the case of Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782, the officers, in hot pursuit of one thought to have committed a holdup, went to the door of a house and knocked, telling the defendant’s wife, when she answered the door, that they thought a robber had entered her house and that they would like to search the premises. She offered no objection and they did enter and search. Obviously, that situation is not analogous to the entry by the officers into the Sutton house.
The conclusion is inescapable that the state wholly failed to sustain its burden of proving that the entry of the Sutton house by the officers was justified on the basis of the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of a search warrant. The principal opinion justifies the entry, search and seizure wholly on the basis of the emergency exception. Necessarily, I dissent.

. In addition to the fact that the principal opinion expressly declines to rely on consent as a basis for its conclusion, I am of the view that the evidence would not justify a reliance on consent as authorization for the entry and search.
Lonnie called the telephone operator and told her that his wife had shot him and he was dying and to call an ambulance. The operator connected him with the ambulance owner, to whom Lonnie said he needed help and to come quickly. The operator kept the telephone line open and heard Lonnie wondering where the ambulance was. Lonnie didn’t ask for officers and he did not talk to any officer. He was concerned about his physical condition as a result of a shooting and wanted an ambulance. The ambulance arrived, picked him up, and started for the hospital before any officer arrived, which the officers knew. Thereafter, the officers could not aid Lonnie by entering the house. What Lonnie had said over the telephone, and obviously was thinking about, had nothing to do with consent for officers to enter the house for purposes of search and seizure. There was no such consent. As the principal opinion says, the inference of a consent in this situation to search and seize would be tenuous.