2010AP895-CR State v. Ultsch

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Warrantless home entry; community caretaker function

Where police officers observed a damaged building and a nearby damaged vehicle covered in snow, parked in a driveway and partially blocking the road, and then entered the private residence that the driveway led to, those circumstances did not give rise to the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition upon warrantless home entries because there was no objectively reasonable basis to conclude that a member of the public needing assistance was within the home.

The facts in this case are substantially different than those in State v. Pinkard. “In the present case, the police had less reason to be concerned. Had the officers found Ultsch sitting or sleeping in the parked vehicle, the circumstances arguably could have given rise to the caretaker function…..

“When Tomlin arrived at Ultsch’s parked Dodge Durango, the condition of the vehicle, viewed alone, was not such as to give rise to concern for Ultsch’s safety. The damage, though significant, was limited to the vehicle’s left front fender. The airbags had not deployed, the windshield was intact, there was no damage to the passenger compartment or to the driver’s side door, and there was no blood or other indication of injury.
“In addition, no person had given officers information that would indicate that Ultsch was in a vulnerable situation, nor did they observe anything that would indicate she was injured. When officers encountered the man who owned the residence where Ultsch lived, he told them that Ultsch was possibly asleep. The officers did not ask the man about Ultsch’s condition and ‘[h]e didn’t mention her needing any assistance.’
“When the officers traveled up the one-quarter mile long driveway that Ultsch had apparently walked up a short time before, they did not notice any blood in the snow nor did anyone testify to any other indication that the driver needed assistance. In fact, except for the fact that she had been involved in a collision some time before — a collision which had only damaged the left front fender of her large, heavy SUV — the officers had no indication whatsoever that Ultsch might need assistance.”

We reverse the denial of Ultsch’s motion to suppress evidence and remand.

2010AP895-CR State v. Ultsch

Dist. IV, Marquette County, Wright, J., Sherman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Fite, Shelley, Madison; For Respondent: Balistreri, Thomas J., Madison; Dufour, Richard J., Montello

Full Text