First Circuit issues very significant decision protecting police from personal liability – new rule of law
In a colorfully written 53-page opinion very important for police officers, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the “community caretaking function,” previously only applicable to automobile searches and seizures, is now applicable to private premises, including residences. The case is Canglia v. Strom, and was issued March 13, 2020.
In this case, officers were called to a very common scene – an individual with apparent mental health problems and firearms in the house. The individual was persuaded to undergo a mental health exam, and his firearms were taken to avoid harm to others in the event he was immediately returned home. The officers were sued for unlawful seizure of the person and the weapons. The court found that they were not liable and issued this very wide sweeping opinion in favor of police.
This case will provide significant protection from personal liability for police officers, and also protect against defendants’ claims of 4th amendment violations. In issuing the opinion, the Court readily acknowledged the seemingly never-ending list of responsibilities that fall to police in keeping the community safe. For example, the court stated:
“There are widely varied circumstances, ranging from helping little children to cross busy streets to navigating the sometimes stormy seas of neighborhood disturbances, in which police officers demonstrate, over and over again, the importance of the roles that they play in preserving and protecting communities. Given this reality, it is unsurprising … the Supreme Court determined, in the motor vehicle context, that police officers performing community caretaking functions are entitled to a special measure of constitutional protection (holding that warrantless search of disabled vehicle’s trunk to preserve public safety did not violate Fourth Amendment). We hold today — as a matter of first impression in this circuit — that this measure of protection extends to police officers performing community caretaking functions on private premises (including homes).”
1. What is the Community Caretaking exception to the warrant requirement?
The court explained:
“The community caretaking exception derives from Cady, a case in which the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a disabled vehicle when the police reasonably believed that the vehicle’s trunk contained a gun and the vehicle was vulnerable to vandals. …The Cady Court explained that police officers frequently engage in such “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” … Police activity in furtherance of such functions (at least in the motor vehicle context) does not, the Court held, offend the Fourth Amendment so long as it is executed in a reasonable manner pursuant to either “state law or sound police procedure.” … In reaching this conclusion, the Cady Court noted the “constitutional difference between searches criminal investigatory process. … On the other hand, the emergency aid exception is typically employed in scenarios in which an individual within a dwelling has already been seriously injured or may be about to sustain such injuries in a matter of moments.
Since Cady, the community caretaking doctrine has become “a catchall for the wide range of responsibilities that police officers must discharge aside from their criminal enforcement activities.” …In accordance with “this evolving principle, we have recognized (in the motor vehicle context) a community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.” Elucidating this exception, we have held that the Fourth Amendment’s imperatives are satisfied when the police perform “non-investigatory duties, including community caretaker tasks, so long as the procedure employed (and its implementation) is reasonable.” ..Police officers enjoy wide latitude in deciding how best to execute their community caretaking responsibilities and, in the typical case, need only act “within the realm of reason” under the particular circumstances. Until now, we have applied the community caretaking exception only in the motor vehicle context.
2. In ruling for the first time that the community caretaking exception is applicable to private homes, the court gave a special nod to the role of the officer, and the discretion needed to perform such an important role, and held:
“Today, we join ranks with those courts that have extended the community caretaking exception beyond the motor vehicle context. In taking this step, we recognize what we have termed the “special role” that police officers play in our society. … After all, a police officer — over and above his weighty responsibilities for enforcing the criminal law — must act as a master of all emergencies, who is “expected to aid those in distress, combat actual hazards, prevent potential hazards from materializing, and provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.” … At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. …Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways. Given the doctrine’s core purpose, its gradual expansion since Cady, and the practical realities of policing, we think it plain that the community caretaking doctrine may, under the right circumstances, have purchase outside the motor vehicle context.
3. The court went on to describe the great difficulty, and often no-win positions in which police find themselves:
“[W]e also remain mindful that police officers have a difficult job — a job that frequently must be carried out amidst the push and pull of competing centrifugal and centripetal forces. Police officers must sometimes make on-the-spot judgments in harrowing and swiftly evolving circumstances. Such considerations argue persuasively in favor of affording the police some reasonable leeway in the performance of their community caretaking responsibilities.
Last — but surely not least — encounters with individuals whom police reasonably believe to be experiencing acute mental health crises frequently confront police with precisely the sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t conundrum that the community caretaking doctrine can help to alleviate. If police officers are left twisting in the wind when they take decisive action to assist such individuals and prevent the dreadful consequences that might otherwise ensue, they would be fair game for claims of overreach and unwarranted intrusion. Conversely, if the lack of constitutional protection leads police officers simply to turn a blind eye to such situations and tragedy strikes, the officers would be fair game for interminable second-guessing…”
4. Police do not have a free pass with this exception – so what are the limits? How will officers’ conduct be reviewed?
The court explained the analysis:
“As a starting point, police officers must have “solid, non-investigatory reasons” for engaging in community caretaking activities. …They may not use the doctrine as “a mere subterfuge for investigation.” Leave to undertake caretaking activities must be based on “specific articulable facts,” sufficient to establish that an officer’s decision to act in a caretaking capacity was “justified on objective grounds,” ..Then, too, those actions must draw their essence either from state law or from sound police procedure.
What is considered “sound police procedure?”
The court held that “sound police procedure” need not involve the application of either established protocols or fixed criteria. “We have defined sound police procedure broadly and in practical terms; it encompasses police officers’ “reasonable choices” among available options. …There is, moreover, “no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities.”… Even so, community caretaking tasks must be narrowly circumscribed, both in scope and in duration, to match what is reasonably required to perform community caretaking functions. …The acid test in most cases will be whether decisions made and methods employed in pursuance of the community caretaking function are “within the realm of reason.”
Bargaining Recommendation
This new rule of law may impact how officers on the street, and their supervisors, make everyday decisions in cases where there might not be probable cause to arrest, but there remains a need to act to avoid imminent harm. Unions should request that Departments issue training and guidance to officers in light of the Court’s ruling in Caniglia v. Strom (March 13, 2020), and this case may impact both criminal cases and civil liability of officers.
Source: Legal
First Circuit issues very significant decision protecting police from personal liability – new rule of law