Officers Who Entered Home To Check On Safety Of Occupant Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity

Issue

In Martin v. City of Oceanside, (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3143, 9th Cir.(Cal.), Mar 11, 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether police officers who entered a home without a warrant to check on the safety of an occupant are entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging they violated the Fourth Amendment.

Facts

Based on a phone call from an “extremely concerned” parent who had been unable to reach his daughter for several days, two police officers went to the daughter’s home and found the daughter’s car in the driveway. The daughter did not, however, answer the officers’ door knock or telephone call. After being advised by a neighbor that she thought the daughter was home, the officers entered the home through an unlocked door to check on the daughter’s safety. Upon determining the safety of the daughter (who, along with her boyfriend, was home but had ignored the officer’s knock and call), the officers left the house. The daughter’s boyfriend sued, claiming the officers had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his house without a warrant. The trial court ruled in the officers’ and city’s favor and the boyfriend appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

Applying a three-part test, the Court of Appeals determined the police officers were entitled to enter the home without a warrant to render “emergency aid”:

    1. The police had reasonable grounds to believe there was an emergency and an immediate need for their assistance to protect life or property. Here, the father’s call, the neighbor’s statement that the daughter should be home, and the officer’s unanswered knocks and phone call all supported the officers’ reasonable belief they should investigate a potential emergency situation.
    2. The search was not primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. There was no evidence the officers entered the home for any reason other than to check on the daughter’s safety.
    3. There was a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. Again, the father’s call, the neighbor’s statement, the presence of the daughter’s car in the driveway, and the unanswered knocks and phone call gave the officers cause to reasonably believe there was an emergency in the home. Also, the officers did no more than search the areas of the home where the daughter could have potentially been located.

The Court also rejected the boyfriend’s argument that the officers failed to “knock and announce” their presence and purpose. The officers had knocked on the door and the daughter and her boyfriend both recognized the uniformed officers as officers, yet “chose to play hide-and-go-seek with the authorities.”
The Court thus affirmed the judgment in favor of the city and the officers.

Legal Alert Email Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.