alr emergency search

8/14/2019 ALR Emergency SEarch

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alr-emergency-search 1/32

Source: All Sources : Federal Legal - U.S. : Federal Court Cases and ALR,Combined CourtsTerms: paramedic or emergency medical technician and law review (Edit Search)

11 A.L.R.5th 52, *

ALR 5th; Copyright (c) 1999 Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.

ANNOTATIONLAWFULNESS OF SEARCH OF PERSON OR PERSONAL EFFECTS UNDER MEDICAL EMERGENCYEXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT

Tracy A. Bateman, J.D.

11 A.L.R.5th 52

TOTAL CLIENT-SERVICE LIBRARY(R) REFERENCESThe following references may be of related or collateral interest to a user

of this annotation.

AnnotationsSee the related annotations listed in the body of the annotation.

Encyclopedias and Texts68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures 44, 56��

8 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Criminal Procedure 22:159�

12 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Evidence 33:388, 33:390��

Practice Aids7 Federal Procedural Forms, L Ed, Criminal Procedure 20:571-20:575,��

20:6218 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Criminal Procedure, Forms 241, 245, 247, 25822 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Searches and Seizures, Forms 71-73, 75, 81-86

5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence

Federal StatutesU.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4,USCS Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104

USCS Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(3), 12(f), 41(e), 41(f)

Digests and IndexesL Ed Digest, Search and Seizure 11, 25��

ALR Digest, Search and Seizure 5, 15, 16, 17��

ALR Index, Baggage; Briefcase; Clothing; Criminal Procedure Rules; Drugs andNarcotics; Evidence; Exclusion and Suppression of Evidence; Health; MedicalCare and Treatment; Privacy; Purses and Wallets; Search and Seizure

Auto-Cite(R)Cases and annotations referred to herein can be further researched through



the Auto-Cite(R) computer-assisted research service. Use Auto-Cite to checkcitations for form, parallel references, prior and later history, andannotation references.

RESEARCH SOURCESThe following are the research sources that were found to be helpful in

compiling this annotation.

Encyclopedias68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures 44, 56��

79 CJS, Searches and Seizures 66(a-c)�

TextsCook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused 3:34�

Hall, Search and Seizure 7:10-7:12��

2 LaFave, Search and Seizure 2d 5.4(c), 5.5(d)��

Orfield's Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules 41�

1 Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions 10.4(2)�

Wharton's Criminal Procedure 13th Ed 169-177��

14 Words and Phrases (Emergency Aid Doctrine, Emergency Doctrine, EmergencyException)

Law Review ArticlesMascolo, The Emergency Doctrine Exception to the Warrant Requirement Underthe Fourth Amendment, 22 Buffalo L Rev 419 (1972)

Electronic Search Query(search! w/25 emergency w/25 aid or medical w/25 pocket or purse or walletor luggage or briefcase or bag)

West Digest Key NumbersCriminal Law 394.4(13)Drugs and Narcotics 182(3), 184, 184(1, 3, 5)Military Justice 1066

Searches and Seizures 23, 24, 39, 42, 53, 192

--------------------

CONTENTS:To view a section or subsection, transmit p* and its number. Ex.,p*1 or p*1aTo view the Table-of-Cases, transmit p*casesTo view the Index (where available), transmit p*index

I. Preliminary Matters

1. Introduction�

[a] Scope

[b] Related annotations

2. Summary and comment�

[a] Summary[b] Practice pointers

II. Searches of Victims of Vehicular Accident

3. Where person being treated by medical professionals at time of search�

4. Where person not being treated by medical professionals at time of search�



[a] Evidence found held admissible[b] Evidence found held not admissible

III. Searches of Persons Found Suffering from Unknown Ailment

5. Where person found unconscious�

6. Where person found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent, or otherwise�

unable to provide identification or information regarding condition

[a] Search held reasonable[b] Search held not reasonable

IV. Other Searches

7. Shooting victims�

[a] In general[b] After identification found

8. Stabbing victims�

9. Persons known to be intoxicated�

10. Victims of apparent drug overdose�


11. Victims of apparent mental illness�


12. Domestic violence�

[a] Search held reasonable[b] Search held unreasonable

[*cases] Jurisdictional Table of Cited Statutes and Cases n*

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n* Statutes, rules, regulations, and constitutional provisions bearing on the

subject of the annotation are included in this table only to the extent, and inthe form, that they are reflected in the court opinions discussed in thisannotation. The reader should consult the appropriate statutory or regulatorycompilations to ascertain the current status of relevant statutes, rules,regulations, and constitutional provisions.

For federal cases involving state law, see state headings.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -UNITED STATESState v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997)- 12[a]�

United States v Barone (1964, CA2 NY) 330 F2d 543- 2[a]�

United States v Black (1988, CA6 Ky) 860 F2d 1080, 1988 US App LEXIS

14189- 5�

United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201- 5, 6[b]��

United States v Haley (1978, CA8 Mo) 581 F2d 723- 5�

Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250- 5, 6[b],��

10[a]

ALASKASchraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834- 2[a], 6[b]��

CALIFORNIAPeople v Gomez (1964, 1st Dist) 229 Cal App 2d 781, 40 Cal Rptr 616- 5�



People v Gonzales (1960, 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920-��

6[b], 8

COLORADOPeople v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947- 2[a, b], 3��

FLORIDAEvans v State (1978, Fla App D3) 364 So 2d 93- 6[a]�

Shepherd v State (1977, Fla App D1) 343 So 2d 1349- 7[b]�

State v Hutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027- 9,��

10[a]

ILLINOISPeople v Rossi (1981, 2d Dist) 102 Ill App 3d 1069, 58 Ill Dec 291, 430 NE2d

233- 6[b]�

People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492- 2[b], 3, 6[b],��

7[a]People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139- 6[a, b]�

People v Tyler (1991, 5th Dist) 210 Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569NE2d 240- 3, 7[a]��

KANSASState v Nelson (March 21, 1985, Kan App) Slip Op- 9�

State v. Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997)- 12[b]�

MARYLANDBouldin v State (1975) 26 Md App 545, 338 A2d 404- 3�

Floyd v State (1975) 24 Md App 363, 330 A2d 677- 7[a]�

MINNESOTAState v Auman (1986, Minn App) 386 NW2d 818- 10[a]�

MISSOURIState v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435- 2[b], 5, 6[b]��

NEW JERSEYState v Agent (1968) 101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846- 5�

NORTH DAKOTAFargo, City of v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176- 4[a], 9��

OHIOState v Underwood (April 28, 1982, Ohio App, 12th Dist, Clermont Co) Slip

Op- 6[b]�

OREGONOregon Supreme Court in State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143- 9�

State v Hampton (1982) 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744- 11[b]�

State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459- 4[b], 11[a]��

State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143- 9�

State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201- 4[b], 11[a]��

SOUTH CAROLINAState v Patrick (1970) 255 SC 130, 177 SE2d 545- 7[a]�

TEXASBroadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283- 2[b],��

4[a]



Perez v State (1974, Tex Crim) 514 SW2d 748- 5�

Tijerina v State (1979, Tex Crim) 578 SW2d 415- 5�

Vargas v State (1976, Tex Crim) 542 SW2d 151- 5�

WASHINGTONState v Hutchison (1990) 56 Wash App 863, 785 P2d 1154- 5�

State v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617- 2[a], 5, 6[b]��

State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489- 2[b], 3��

State v Lowrimore (1992) 67 Wash App 949, 841 P2d 779- 11[a]�

State v. Dempsey, 88 Wash. App. 918, 947 P.2d 265 (Div. 3 1997)- 11[a]�

WEST VIRGINIAWagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286- 2[b], 3��

WISCONSINState v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1- 2[b], 10[b]��

The medical emergency exception will support a warrantless search of a person orpersonal effects when the person is found in an unconscious or semiconsciouscondition and the purpose of the search is to discover evidence of identificationand other information that might enhance the prospect of administering appropriate

medical assistance. However, if the court finds that the facts do not support amedical emergency, the search is not reasonable and any evidence found will not beadmissible. For example, in the recent case of People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947 the court held that a warrantless search of the defendant'spurse, conducted by the police officer while the defendant was under the care ofmedical personnel and conscious and coherent, was not based on exigentcircumstances and thus was constitutionally unreasonable. Those cases in which thecourts addressed the lawfulness of a search of a person or personal effects underthe medical exception to the warrant requirement are collected and analyzed inthis annotation.

I. Preliminary Matters

[*1] Introduction

[*1a] Scope

This annotation collects and analyzes state and federal cases dealing with thelawfulness n1 of the search n2 of a person or personal effects n3 under themedical emergency exception n4 to the warrant requirement. To be within the scopeof this annotation, the search must have been performed by a police officer or atthe direction of a police officer. n5

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n1 This issue in the cases usually involves the admissibility of evidence found

as a result of the search, which turns on the reasonableness of the search.

n2 As to what constitutes a "search," see, generally, 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches andSeizures 8.�

n3 "Person or personal effects" would include searches of clothing, purse, wallet,briefcase, and the like. This annotation does not include premises searches orsearches of vehicles.

n4 The medical emergency exception is a variant of the exigent circumstancesdoctrine. It is sometimes referred to by other terms such as the "emergency aid"



exception, and some courts merely discuss it as an exigent circumstance.

n5 For a discussion of the admissibility, in a criminal case, of evidence obtainedby a search by a private individual, see the annotation at 36 ALR3d 553; andregarding the necessity that police obtain a warrant before taking possession of,examining, or testing evidence discovered in a search by a private person, see theannotation at 47 ALR4th 501.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Readers are cautioned that any constitutional provisions, legislative enactments,court rules, or regulations bearing directly upon this subject are discussedherein, and included in the Jurisdictional Table of Cited Statutes and Cases, onlyto the extent that they are reflected in the reported cases within the scope ofthis annotation. To ascertain the current status of these provisions, it isnecessary to consult the appropriate constitutional, statutory, court rule, orregulatory compilation.

[*1b] Related annotations Search and seizure: reasonable expectation of privacyin tent or campsite. 66 ALR5th 373. Admissibility of evidence discovered in searchof defendant's property or residence authorized by defendant's spouse (resident or

nonresident)-state cases. 65 ALR5th 407. Propriety of search of nonoccupantvisitor's belongings pursuant to warrant issued for another's premises. 51 ALR5th375. Admissibility of evidence discovered in search of adult defendant's propertyor residence authorized by defendant's minor child—state cases. 51 ALR5th425. Search and seizure: lawfulness of demand for driver's license, vehicleregistration, or proof of insurance pursuant to police stop to assist motorist. 19ALR5th 884. Admissibility, in criminal case, of physical evidence obtained withoutconsent by surgical removal from person's body. 41 ALR4th 60. Lawfulness ofwarrantless search of purse or wallet of person arrested or suspected of crime. 29ALR4th 771. Sufficiency of showing of reasonable belief of danger to officers orothers excusing compliance with "knock and announce" requirement-state criminalcases. 17 ALR4th 301. Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminalclient regarding search and seizure issues. 12 ALR4th 318. Lawfulness of

"inventory search" of motor vehicle impounded by police. 48 ALR3d 537. CommentNote.-"Fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine excluding evidence derived frominformation gained in illegal search. 43 ALR3d 385. Violation of federalconstitutional rule (Mapp v Ohio) excluding evidence obtained through unreasonablesearch or seizure, as constituting reversible or harmless error. 30 ALR3d 128.Comment Note.-Federal Constitution as affecting admissibility of evidence obtainedby illegal search and seizure. 84 ALR2d 959. Modern status of rule governingadmissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. 50 ALR2d 531.Searches and seizures by health officers without warrant. 13 ALR2d 969. SupremeCourt's views as to the federal legal aspects of the right of privacy. 43 L Ed 2d871.

[*2] Summary and comment

[*2a] Summary

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit allsearches and seizures, but only unreasonable searches and seizures. n6 Warrantlesssearches are per se unreasonable unless they fit within one of the fewspecifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrantrequirement. These exceptions have been jealously and carefully drawn and theburden falls upon the state to prove that the exigencies of the situation made thecourse imperative. These exceptions include a search of abandoned property; asearch in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; a search, with probable cause, to avoid



destruction of a known seizable item; a search of a movable vehicle; an"inventory" search; a search pursuant to voluntary consent; a "stop and frisk"search; "emergency aid"; and a search incident to an arrest. n7

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n6 See 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures 2.�

n7 See Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834. See, generally, 68 Am Jur 2d,Searches and Seizures 35-59.��

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

The emergency exception appears to have originated in United States v Barone(1964, CA2 NY) 330 F2d 543, cert den 377 US 1004, 12 L Ed 1053, 84 S Ct 1940, inwhich the court recognized that the right of the police to enter and investigatein an emergency without the accompanying intent to either search or arrest wasinherent in the very nature of their duties as peace officers, and derived fromthe common law. n8 The medical emergency exception will support a warrantlesssearch of a person or personal effects when the person is found in an unconsciousor semiconscious condition and the purpose of the search is to discover evidence

of identification and other information that might enhance the prospect ofadministering appropriate medical assistance, and the rationale is that the needto protect life or avoid serious injury to another is paramount to the right ofprivacy and is thus justified for what would otherwise be an invalid search in theabsence of an emergency. n9 Whether such an emergency exists depends on the factsof each case. n10

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n8 See Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834. See also Mascolo, "Theemergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement under the FourthAmendment," 22 Buffalo L Rev 419 (1972).

n9 See People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947.

n10 See State v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Where the person being searched was involved in a vehicular accident, courts havefound the particular search of the person or personal effects unreasonable whenthey were being treated by medical professionals at the time of the search,finding no medical emergency under those circumstances ( 3). However, where the� vehicular accident victim was not being treated by medical professionals, onecourt held that the particular search was reasonable and the evidence foundadmissible, ( 4[a]), while another court held that, even if the search was�

reasonable because of a need to find medical information, evidence found was notadmissible ( 4[b]).�

Where police found a person who was unconscious and suffering from an unknownailment, courts have held that the particular warrantless search of the person orpersonal effects was reasonable based on a need to find identification or medicalinformation in order to diagnose the person's condition or aid in treatment ( 5).� Where a person was found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwiseunable to provide identification or information regarding his or her condition,some courts have held that the particular warrantless search of the person orpersonal effects for identification or something which would account for the



defendant's condition was reasonable ( 6[a]), while others held that the� particular search was not justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrantrequirement, apparently because the motive for the search was not medicalassistance ( 6[b]).�

Some courts have held that particular warrantless searches of a shooting victim'sperson or personal effects were justified by a need to determine the victim'sidentity or other information related to treatment and were therefore reasonable

( 7[a]). However, one court held that continuing to search the victim's person or� personal effects after identification was found was not reasonable ( 7[b]). One� court has also held that the particular warrantless search of a stabbing victim'sperson or personal effects was justified by a need to determine the victim'sidentity or other information related to treatment and was therefore reasonable (� 8).

Courts have held that a warrantless search of the person or personal effects toidentify a person known to be intoxicated was not justified by the medicalemergency exception to the warrant requirement ( 9). Where a search was made of� the person or personal effects of one the police believed to be the victim of adrug overdose, one court held that the particular warrantless search wasreasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers and

their obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment ( 10[a]), while another� court held that the particular search was not reasonable where it was notmotivated by a perceived need to render medical assistance ( 10[b]). Where police� took a person into custody because they reasonably believed him in need ofimmediate care for mental illness, one court held that they were justified insearching him for anything which might be reasonably related to his treatment (� 11[a]). However, another court found that an allegation by the police that theirwarrantless search of a person, who they were investigating to determine if he wasmentally fit to be on duty as a security guard, was justified by the emergencyexception to the warrant requirement was not supported by the evidence ( 11[b]).�

[*2b] Practice pointers

Cases regarding lawfulness of the search of a person or personal effects under themedical emergency exception to the warrant requirement are usually raised on amotion to suppress in a case where the person has been charged with a crimeinvolving possession of the thing that was seized during the search. n11 However,sometimes the person is objecting to the introduction of evidence that links himto another crime. n12 The first consideration of defense counsel in decidingwhether to file a motion to suppress is the potential effect of the evidence he isseeking to suppress, so where the essence of the offense is possession of theitems seized, defense counsel should make a motion to suppress whenever there isany likelihood of success. n13 Other factors defense counsel should considerinclude the strength of the other evidence, n14 opportunities it provides fordiscovery, n15 the danger of making damaging admissions in the course of moving tosuppress, n16 the necessity for the accused's testimony, n17 and the need for

preserving the suppression question for appeal in the event of a conviction. n18

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n11 See, for example, State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489; andBroadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283.

n12 See, for example, Wagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286; and People vSmith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492.

n13 See 5 Am Jur Trials 331, Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence 65.�








- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Where defense counsel decides to file a motion to suppress, the motion should bebroad and include a request for suppression of all evidence that may have beenillegally obtained and is detrimental to the interests of the defendant. n19Defense counsel should make the motion and accompanying documents brief andsketchy so that counsel will not educate the prosecution and witnesses and sothat, as the evidence develops, he may be in a position to vary his theory toconform to the proof. n20 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defensecounsel may establish a prima facie case for suppression by the defendant's own

testimony, the testimony of third-party witnesses, the testimony of lawenforcement officers, or some combination of these. n21

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -




- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

If the motion to suppress is denied, defense counsel must decide if the caseshould proceed to trial. If introduction of the evidence is likely to convict andthe outcome of the case is entirely dependent on the appellate disposition of thesuppression questions, it would be futile to spend the time and money necessaryfor trial, and defense counsel may want to attempt to arrive at a stipulation withthe prosecution by which judgment will be rendered on the basis of the evidenceintroduced at the pretrial hearing. n22 If the case does proceed to trial, acautious defense counsel will interpose a continuing objection to the introductionof such evidence whenever the prosecution seeks to offer it. n23

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -



- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

In determining whether a search is justified by the medical emergency exception tothe warrant requirement, some jurisdictions require that both a subjective andobjective test be met. First, the searching officer must actually be motivated bya perceived need to render aid or assistance; and second, even if the requisitemotivation is found to exist, it must be shown that a reasonable person under thecircumstances would have thought an emergency existed. n24 However, at least one



court has held that the motive of the officers in performing the search was notrelevant where the objective facts showed a medical emergency. n25

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n24 See, for example, State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1 (ovrld onother grounds by State v Weide, 155 Wis 2d 537, 455 NW2d 899); People v Wright(1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947; and State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562,

647 P2d 489.

n25 See State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

II. Searches of Victims of Vehicular Accident

[*3] Where person being treated by medical professionals at time of search n26

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search ofthe person or personal effects of one who was apparently involved in a vehicularaccident was not justified by a medical emergency, and therefore was

constitutionally unreasonable, where the person was being treated by medicalprofessionals at the time of the search.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n26 For cases involving treatment of victim by paramedics, see 4.�

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

In People v Wright (1991, Colo) 804 P2d 866, 11 ALR5th 947, the court held that awarrantless search of the defendant's purse, conducted by the police officer whilethe defendant, who had been involved in a car accident, was under the care ofmedical personnel and conscious and coherent was not based on exigent

circumstances and thus was constitutionally unreasonable. The defendant, chargedwith possession of a controlled substance, filed a pretrial motion to suppress onthe basis that the evidence underlying the charge was seized without a warrant inviolation of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. When the police officerarrived at the scene of the car accident, the defendant was conscious andparamedics were at the site. The police officer attempted to speak to thedefendant, but paramedics were attending to her, so he did not interrupt. One ofthe paramedics handed the officer the defendant's purse, but he did not open itand did not attempt to obtain identifying information from the defendant at thistime. The defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The officerinvestigated the scene and then brought the defendant's purse to the hospitalwhere he was informed that she was in the X-ray room and would be there for sometime. Rather than attempting to contact the defendant, the officer searched the

defendant's purse looking for her driver's license, car registration and proof ofinsurance in order to complete his accident report. He observed a small zipper baginside the purse, opened it, and found what appeared to be a "cocaine kit." Hethen opened a larger bag and found some marijuana and pills. After completing hissearch of the purse, the officer contacted a narcotics officer who identified thepills as methamphetamine. The court noted that the contents of a purse or walletare of an extremely personal nature and any warrantless search can be justifiedonly under the exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement, whichincluded emergency situations that pose a threat to the life or safety of theperson searched or others. The state relied on the so-called medical emergencyvariant of the exigent circumstances doctrine to support the search of the purse



at the hospital. The court pointed out that the medical emergency exception willsupport a warrantless search of a person's purse or wallet where the person isfound in an unconscious or semiconscious condition and the purpose of the searchis to discover evidence of identity and other information that might enhance theprospect of administering appropriate medical assistance. The court continued thattwo factors predominate the analysis of warrantless searches and seizures underthe medical exception: first, there must be facts which, when objectivelyanalyzed, establish the existence of a real and immediate danger to the life or

safety of another; and second, the officer's purpose in conducting the search mustbe to render aid or assistance to the endangered person. The court concluded that,under the facts of the instant case, the state's reliance on this exception wasmisplaced, finding that when the officer searched the defendant's purse at thehospital he was not confronted with a situation that posed a threat to thedefendant because she was under the care of medical personnel, was conscious andcoherent, and fully able to provide information that might be useful in herdiagnosis and treatment. In addition, the court found that the evidence showedthat the officer's sole purpose in searching the purse was not to obtaininformation that might possibly have been useful in diagnosing or treating thedefendant, but to obtain information needed for his accident report.

Where the police officer did not arrive at the hospital until an hour after the

accident when hospital personnel were already attending to the defendant, thecourt in People v Tyler (1991, 5th Dist) 210 Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569NE2d 240, held that the officer's search of a car accident victim's pants afterthey had been removed from him at the hospital was not reasonable where thepurpose was to determine his identity. In support of its argument that the officeracted reasonably in searching the defendant's pants for his wallet in order todetermine his identity, the state cited People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254NE2d 492, 7[a]. However, the court found that Smith was distinguishable because,� in that case, the wallet was taken from the victim at the scene of the incidentand here the officer did not have the same need to ascertain the victim's identityor information of value in handling him, such as blood type, possible diabeticcondition, or inability to tolerate certain medications.

In Bouldin v State (1975) 26 Md App 545, 338 A2d 404, revd on other grounds n27276 Md 511, 350 A2d 130, the court found that the search of the defendantmotorcycle accident victim's clothing was difficult to justify as seeking identityin a medical emergency where the defendant was already hospitalized and beingprepared for examination before the search began. The court also noted that theabsence of medical rationale was obvious from the police officer's testimony thathe went to the hospital in order to arrest the defendant. The defendant wasinvolved in a motorcycle accident and was taken to the hospital. When the policeofficer attempted to ascertain the defendant's identity by radioing the licenseplate number to the Department of Motor Vehicles, he was informed that thoselicense plates had been stolen. The officer testified that he went to the hospitalwith a twofold purpose in mind-to check on the defendant's condition and to placehim under arrest. When the officer arrived at the hospital, the defendant was

unconscious and being prepared for examination. The officer searched thedefendant's clothing to find some identification and found glassine bagscontaining a white powdery substance which was discovered to be heroin.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n27 The court reversed the holding that the search was justified as a lawfulsearch incident to arrest.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -



Where, at the time of the officer's search of the defendant's tote bag in order tofind identification, the defendant, a victim of an apparent automobile accident,was being treated by medical personnel and was beginning to regain consciousness,the court in State v Loewen (1982) 97 Wash 2d 562, 647 P2d 489, held that it wasnot reasonable for the officer to assume a life-threatening emergency existed soas to justify the warrantless search. The defendant and her son were the occupantsof a wrecked automobile found lodged against a dirt embankment in a parking lot atthe airport. According to the airport security officer who discovered them, the

defendant's lip was bleeding and she was disoriented, as if in shock, and wasunable to identify herself or her child. The security officer looked through awallet found on the floor of the car in an effort to determine the defendant'sidentity, and found a concealed weapon permit, but no driver's license orphotograph. The security officer radioed the sheriff's office for assistance and adeputy sheriff arrived a few minutes later. The deputy sheriff decided to take thedefendant to the hospital. Before doing so, he performed a pat-down search for aweapon because of the permit, and found a cocaine sniffer. Then he placed thewallet on top of the tote bag and took her to the hospital. Upon arriving at thehospital, the defendant was taken to the emergency room and her tote bag,containing the wallet, was left at the nurses' station. The deputy sheriff thendecided to search the tote bag to get a positive identification of her. Hetestified that he found a plastic baggie with some leafy material in it right on

top of the tote bag, then found the wallet, and lastly found a baggie ofphencyclidine (PCP) or angel dust. The nurse who assisted in the search testifiedthat the wallet was found first. After searching the tote bag, the deputy returnedto the emergency room and again asked the defendant for her name. By that time shewas better oriented and gave him her name. In spite of her motion to suppress, thematerial discovered in her tote bag was admitted in evidence at her trial and shewas convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Since the search of thetote bag was conducted without a warrant, the court noted that it must initiallydetermine whether it falls within some exception to the constitutional mandateprohibiting warrantless searches. The court continued that warrantless searches bypolice officers have been upheld when an emergency situation has been found tohave existed, such as where persons were found seriously injured or unconsciousand the search had been completed for the express purpose of finding

identification, medical alert cards, or the names of persons to call in case of anemergency. The court found that, to come within the medical emergency exception,it must be satisfied both subjectively and objectively that the search wasactually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance. Applying thistest to the facts of the case, the court found that the search was initiated bythe deputy and not by the nurse, and at the time the search was undertaken, thedefendant was being treated by trained medical personnel and was beginning toregain consciousness, and concluded that it was not reasonable for the deputy toassume a life-threatening emergency existed so as to justify the warrantlesssearch. The court pointed out that the deputy may have subjectively perceived aneed to search the tote bag, but it could not be said objectively that areasonable person would have thought an emergency existed or continued to exist.

In Wagner v Hedrick (1989, W Va) 383 SE2d 286, the court held the search of thedefendant motorcycle accident victim's clothing for identification was reasonablegiven the circumstances which existed in the hospital emergency room, but rejectedthe state's contention that the emergency exception to the warrant requirementjustified the search. The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident and wastaken to the hospital. The investigating police officer went to the hospital inorder to complete an accident report and check on the condition of the victims.The officer testified that he found an extremely chaotic emergency room. Thedefendant was apparently conscious but also intoxicated and in extreme pain, aswas his traveling companion. The officer attempted to identify the victims inorder to complete his accident report. The person who filled out the hospital



admissions sheet testified that the defendant appeared to be coherent, but she puta question mark next to his name because he appeared uncertain or hesitant aboutgiving it to her. When the officer questioned the defendant as to his identity, heconcluded that the defendant either could not answer questions or did not want toanswer questions because of the pain he was in. The officer then looked in thepockets of the defendant's pants, which had been put in a box under the bed, andfound a gold coin. He later discovered that the coin had been stolen from a murdervictim and that the defendant was a suspect. At the hearing to suppress the gold

coin and all evidence obtained as a result of the gold coin, the court held thatthe defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pants once hebrought them into the emergency room of the hospital, and concluded that theofficer acted both reasonably and in good faith when he searched the defendant'spants for identification, in light of the circumstances in the hospital emergencyroom which frustrated his attempts to identify these accident victims. The court,however, rejected the state's argument that the emergency exception justified thesearch, finding that the officer's search was very similar to a limited search foridentification undertaken to facilitate a noncriminal disposition of a person inpolice control and that in this situation it is clearly unnecessary to find areasonable belief of a medical emergency. In this case, the court did not findevidence of the kind of medical emergency required by the medical emergencydoctrine where the defendant was already receiving treatment for his injuries.

[*4] Where person not being treated by medical professionals at time of searchn28

[*4a] Evidence found held admissible

The court in the following case held that the particular warrantless search of theperson or personal effects of one who was apparently involved in a vehicularaccident was justified by a medical emergency, and therefore was constitutionallyreasonable and evidence found in the search was admissible where the person wasnot being treated by professional medical personnel at the time of the search.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n28 This section includes cases where the person is being treated byparamedics.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Fact that police officers knew that defendant had been in serious accident andthat much blood was inside defendant's vehicle and leading to front door ofdefendant's trailer, coupled with officers' testimony that they entered trailerbecause they believed emergency assistance was necessary and, in fact,administered first aid to defendant upon their entry, was sufficient to supportwarrantless entry of trailer and admissibility of blood sample taken later fromdefendant. City of Fargo v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176.

Where the defendant had been involved in an automobile accident and was onlysemiconscious and incoherent, the court in Broadnax v State (1984, Tex App Houston(14th Dist)) 666 SW2d 283, held that the officer was making a proper and necessarysearch for identification, so it was clearly within the "emergency" exception tothe search warrant requirement, and the trial court was correct in denying themotion to suppress and admitting the firearm found in her purse into evidence. Asthe result of driving the wrong way down a one-way street, the defendant wasinvolved in an automobile accident. An ambulance attendant examined the defendantand determined that she did not need to be transported to the hospital. When thepolice officer arrived, he immediately talked to the defendant in an effort to



learn her identity, but because she was only semiconscious and incoherent, he wasunsuccessful. He then moved the defendant to his police car and placed her in theback seat. Thereafter, he returned to the defendant's car and, in the course ofsearching the car, found a gun inside her purse. She was charged with possessionof a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant claimed that the warrantlesssearch did not fit into any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Thecourt, however, found that one of the established exceptions to the warrantrequirement was the "emergency doctrine," the rationale of which was that there

was a need to act immediately to protect or preserve life or to prevent seriousinjury. The court noted that under this exception, officers may search a personfound unconscious for identification, names of relatives and physicians, andmedical history, and that the test on appeal was whether the officer reasonablybelieved that a warrantless search was justified by an emergency. The courtconcluded that the state's burden of proof was adequately met here where therecord indicated that the defendant was repeatedly asked who she was, but was tooincoherent to give an intelligible answer. The court continued that, believing herto be intoxicated, the officer placed her in the back of his car and searched herpurse for identification, and that before he initiated the search he was incustody of a nameless, unidentified woman, who was an accident victim, a potentialcriminal suspect, and the operator of an immobile vehicle that necessarily wasgoing to be towed away. The court also pointed out that the officer was unsure of

her physical condition and did not know when, or if, she would become coherent.

[*4b] Evidence found held not admissible

Where the victim of a vehicular accident was not being treated by professionalmedical personnel at the time of the search, the court in the following case heldthat even if a warrantless search of the person or personal effects was justifiedby a medical emergency, evidence found in the search was not admissible in acriminal trial.

In State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201, the court held that even ifthe police officer's search of the accident victim's purse was necessitated by thedemands of immediate medical attention, evidence of criminal activity discovered

would not be admissible in a criminal trial. When the officer arrived at theaccident scene, he found an overturned van and emergency medical techniciansproviding medical assistance to the defendant, who was lying on the ground. Thedefendant was only semiconscious and could not provide the officer with pertinentinformation. A passenger in the defendant's car told the officer the defendant'sname and street she lived on, but did not know her middle name, her preciseaddress, her telephone number or birthdate. In order to gather information toassist in the defendant's medical treatment and to complete his accident report,the officer reached into the overturned vehicle and retrieved a purse that hethought might contain the defendant's driver's license. In the purse, hediscovered a baggie of marijuana. The trial court granted the defendant's motionto suppress the evidence found in her purse, reasoning that the officer hadsufficient information from other sources and, therefore, did not need to search

the purse for purposes of medical treatment or to complete his report. The statecontended that the seizure was lawful, because opening the purse was authorized aspart of the "community caretaking" function, and that when an officer is carryingout that function, his actions are reasonable. The state argued that the officeracted reasonably, given the administrative and medical need for information, andthat he lawfully opened the purse and lawfully seized the contraband that was inplain view after the purse was opened. However, the court pointed out that, whenpresented with situations not directly related to a criminal investigation, policemay enter protected areas to render aid or assistance, notwithstanding a lack ofstatutory authority, but, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution,any evidence discovered is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. n29



- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n29 But see State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459, 11[a], where the� court held that evidence found in a search of a person detained because he was inneed of immediate care or treatment for mental illness was admissible.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

III. Searches of Persons Found Suffering from Unknown Ailment

[*5] Where person found unconscious

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search ofthe person or personal effects of one who was found unconscious and suffering froman unknown ailment was reasonable based on a need to find identification ormedical information in order to diagnose the person's condition or aid intreatment.

Where passersby found the defendant in a disabled car, foaming at the mouth andunable to talk, and a police officer thereafter arranged for the defendant's

transportation to a hospital, after which the passersby turned over two lockedbriefcases and a motel key found in the defendant's car, the court in UnitedStates v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, held that the officer's search ofone of the briefcases for identification or other information potentially helpfulto hospital personnel in diagnosing and treating the defendant's conditionsatisfied the medical emergency exception, where he was unconscious at the time ofthe search, and sums of money taken in a bank robbery and recovered from thebriefcase were admissible in evidence against the defendant. The defendantcontended that the District Court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seizedin the two briefcases because it had been seized in violation of the FourthAmendment. On first consideration of this appeal, the court was unable toascertain from the record the time relationship between the defendant'shospitalization, his treatment there, and his release from the hospital and the

happening of the search of the first briefcase. In a hearing, the court found thatthe defendant was not conscious before 6:25 p.m., and that the police officersentered the defendant's motel room in order to find some identification orsomething to give to the hospital and to obtain the keys to the briefcases foundwith the defendant for the same purpose, at approximately 5:15 p.m., and that thefirst briefcase was opened a few minutes later, at approximately 5:20 p.m.Therefore, the court found it clear that the police not only did not know thedefendant had regained consciousness when they entered the room and opened thefirst briefcase, he in fact had not regained consciousness. The court found thecritical problem to be whether the officers who opened the first briefcase, takenfrom the defendant's car, did so, as they asserted, as a matter of renderingemergency aid to a person in a seizure, or whether this explanation of theirsearch was a pretext, and concluded that their conduct was pursuant to a lawful

lifesaving mission. The court noted that there appeared to be an emergency life-saving exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, citing cases fromother circuits on the right to enter a dwelling without a warrant to renderemergency aid. While recognizing that there may be cases where police assertionsof Good Samaritan motives might, as charged here, be pretextual rather than real,the court agreed that a legitimate life-saving purpose may provide another exampleof exigent circumstances which excuse failure to follow the warrant requirementsof the Fourth Amendment.

Where the defendant was found unconscious on an airplane and a police officer wasasked by medical personnel to look in her purse for identification or medication



it to look for identification. Inside he found several papers identifying the manand a firearm forming the basis of the defendant's conviction for carrying aconcealed weapon. The court held that the warrantless search of the briefcase wasjustified by the particular exigent circumstances present in the case. The courtnoted that the officer was presented with an emergency situation when he observedthe defendant lying in the street, and he reasonably believed that the defendantwas in need of immediate assistance. The court also pointed out that thedefendant's lapse from consciousness did not appear to be attributable to alcohol

and the defendant indicated that he was not hurt. Therefore, the court concludedthat it was reasonable for the officer to seek identification or medical alertcards which might be of assistance and, when he found none on the defendant'sperson, it was reasonable to obtain identification from what he believed to be thedefendant's briefcase.

Where two police officers found the defendant unconscious on a public street andwere unable to rouse him, the court in Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC228, 370 F2d 250, held that a search of the man to secure identification, ifpossible, and then to prepare a report for the hospital concerning the sick manwas lawful. In the process of searching the defendant, the officers did not findidentifying material, but found white powder which appeared to be narcotics. Onappeal, the defendant asserted that the narcotics found on his person were

illegally seized and should have been suppressed. The court noted that if evidenceis discovered by search, its admissibility turns on whether the search was lawful,in other words, reasonable under the circumstances, and that where a reasonablesearch happens to produce evidence of a crime as a by-product, the fact that itwas not so intended was irrelevant. The court continued that a search of one foundin an unconscious condition was both legally permissible and highly necessary,because there is a positive need to see if the person is carrying some indicationof a medical history, the rapid discovery of which could save his life. The courtalso pointed out a need to identify persons so found in order to notify friendsand relatives. Finally, the court noted that the fact that the cause of thedefendant's unconsciousness was not known in no way impaired but enhanced the needand inherent power to search the defendant.

Where the defendant was found unconscious and an ambulance driver, who was also apolice officer, looked through his pocket in order to find some identification anddetermine what was wrong with him, the court in People v Gomez (1964, 1st Dist)229 Cal App 2d 781, 40 Cal Rptr 616, held that the officer acted reasonably underthe facts of ths case and did not need to blind himself as to what he discoveredwhile doing so. The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of possession ofherion, contending that the heroin was illegally obtained from his person. Thedefendant was moved by ambulance from a parked car to the emergency hospital. Hewas unconscious, there was froth on his mouth, and he appeared to be havingconvulsions. At the hospital, efforts were made to restore the defendant'sbreathing, which had stopped three or four times. While the doctor and the nursewere engaged in treating the defendant, the ambulance driver went through thedefendant's pockets to find out who he was and what might be wrong. After learning

the defendant's identity from the contents of his wallet, the officer looked intothe defendant's shirt pocket and found a folded paper wrapped in tinfoil whichproved to contain herion. The officer showed what he found to the doctor andnurse. Whether this aided them in their treatment was not clear from the record.The defendant later regained consciousness and explained his condition as beingcaused by two injections of heroin. The officer testified that his purpose incontinuing the search after learning the defendant's identity was that, when aperson is unconscious, it is necessary to search for a "Medic-Alert" tag orsomething else indicating what might be wrong.

In Perez v State (1974, Tex Crim) 514 SW2d 748, the court held that a search of a



person found in an unconscious condition is necessary and lawful under theemergency or exigent circumstances doctrine, noting that the rapid discovery of amedical history carried on the person might save his life, and there is also aneed to identify the person and to determine if the names of relatives, friends,and physicians can be found so they may be notified. The defendant was found,apparently unconscious, by the manager of a motel. The manager was unable toawaken the defendant and, fearing that he might be dying, called the police. Theofficer attempted to revive the defendant and asked him what was wrong, but he got

no response. The officer then noticed things that led him to believe that thedefendant had just had a "fix" of narcotics. The officer then asked the defendanthis name, but the defendant did not answer. In order to ascertain whether thedefendant was carrying any identification, the officer searched his pockets andfound a pink balloon containing a brown powder later determined to be heroin. Thedefendant was placed under arrest. The court held that even if the officer had notobserved the drug paraphernalia, giving him probable cause to search thedefendant, he would have been called upon to search under the emergency doctrine.

See Vargas v State (1976, Tex Crim) 542 SW2d 151, cert den 429 US 1109, 51 L Ed 2d562, 97 S Ct 1144, where there was no question raised regarding the search foridentification conducted in the ambulance upon the unconscious defendant by thepolice officer, who had responded to a call regarding a sick party at a fire

station, but the court noted that if the herion-filled balloon had been discoveredduring the warrantless search of the defendant in the ambulance, the heroin wouldhave been admissible in evidence because a search would have been justified underthe "emergency" or "exigent circumstances" doctrine. The court pointed out that asearch of a person found in an unconscious condition was reasonable and necessaryfor the purposes of identification and possible discovery of a medical historycarried on the person. The heroin was discovered after an initial examination ofthe defendant's clothing by the nurse at the hospital, which produced a pistol,requiring the nurse to call the police.

See Tijerina v State (1979, Tex Crim) 578 SW2d 415, where the court held that itwas reasonable for the police officer to remove the unconscious defendant from hiscar based on the need to determine his medical condition, and that, when the

officer then determined that the defendant was intoxicated, a search made incidentto an arrest was proper and a gun found during this search was admissible. Apolice officer found the defendant sprawled out on the seat of a car in the earlymorning hours with his wallet open on the floor and was unable to rouse him. Thecourt believed that it was logical for the officer to conclude that the defendantmay have been the victim of an attack, and that the officer's action was proper inremoving the defendant from the car under the emergency or exigent circumstancesdoctrine. The officer testified that his first thought was that the defendant hadbeen robbed or stabbed or something like that. In his attempt to arouse thedefendant, he detected an odor of alcohol. After the officer was able to get thedefendant to come around a bit, he got him out of the car. The officer found noevidence of injury and determined that the defendant was in a state ofintoxication and felt that he might possibly be in some sort of danger or need

some protection. The officer arrested the defendant and in frisking him found agun in his pocket. The defendant argued that because the officer did not determinethat he was intoxicated until he removed him from the car, the arrest was withoutprobable cause and that the gun seized in a search incident thereto was the resultof an unlawful search. The court noted that prior case law had held that a searchof a person found in an unconscious condition was necessary and reasonable,because the rapid discovery of a medical history carried on the person of onefound to be unconscious might save his life. In the instant case, the courtcontinued, if the defendant had been the victim of a robbery and had been stabbedor physically harmed, the discovery of the injury by the officer could haveresulted in treatment which may have saved his life. The court rejected the



defendant's contention that the action of the officer in removing him from the carconstituted an illegal arrest, finding that after the defendant was removed fromthe vehicle, the officer determined that he was intoxicated and a danger tohimself and, hence, the defendant's arrest and the search incident thereto, whichresulted in the seizure of the gun, was legal.

See State v Hutchison (1990) 56 Wash App 863, 785 P2d 1154, where the court heldthat although no medical emergency existed, the search of the defendant's clothing

in order to determine identity and method of disposition was lawful where thedefendant was in danger and in need of aid or assistance. The police were calledto investigate a person lying in a parking lot, apparently unconscious. The policeattempted to rouse him and lift him to his feet. The defendant staggered about ina stupor so the officer seated him in the back of the patrol car. The officer didnot know the cause of the defendant's condition but did not believe the man neededmedical attention so did not take him to the hospital. At the time, the officerbelieved the defendant would be in physical danger if left in the parking lot. Theofficer attempted to communicate with the defendant but the man was unresponsiveto the officer's questions and had to be awakened several times. In an effort todetermine whether the defendant carried identification indicating an address wherehe could be taken or what other disposition could be made of him, the officerconducted a search of his clothing. In the defendant's jacket he found drugs and

drug paraphernalia. The state challenged the trial court's findings at thesuppression hearing that no medical emergency existed and that the state failed toshow a sufficient emergency or exigent circumstances. The court agreed with thetrial court's finding that no medical emergency existed, but noted that this didnot end the inquiry. The court continued that numerous decisions had recognizedthat police officers are expected to render aid and assistance on a regular basisto persons who, although perhaps not in need of immediate professional medicaltreatment, are in danger and in need of help, and that searches performed as apart of providing such aid, if reasonable and in good faith, are generallyallowed. The court found that, in the instant case, it was undisputed that at thetime of the search, the defendant was in need of aid and assistance because theofficer had a reasonable and legitimate concern that he would be in danger ifabandoned in the parking lot, and that the officer did not search him for criminal

or investigatory purposes but in an effort to determine what should be done withhim. The court concluded that the officer's community caretaking duties requiredthat he render aid to the defendant who, if allowed to remain lying in the parkinglot or staggering about in an impaired condition, would have been in danger ofinjury or death, and the only reasonable option for the officer was to ascertainthe defendant's identity and any information that would aid in his disposition.

The courts in the following cases as well held that the particular warrantlesssearch of a person, or personal effects of one who was found unconscious andsuffering from an unknown ailment, was reasonable based on a need to findidentification or medical information in order to diagnose the person's conditionor aid in treatment, where-

-the police officer found the defendant lying on the restroom floor, checked himto see if he had any bumps on his head or any reason why he had passed out, thenpatted down his pockets and found a paper sack containing some pills and asyringe, even though the officer did not state the reason of his search as foridentification or evidence of medical condition, finding that the objective factswere what gave rise to the right and duty of the police in a situation such asthis and it would be unrealistic to require that the officer first state hismotive for the search. State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435.

-the defendant was brought unconscious to the police headquarters by twounidentified men and, while he was still unconscious, was searched by the police



who discovered marijuana on his person, finding that in this case there wasnothing to indicate to the police that the defendant had violated the law, but thepolice officers had an unconscious man on their hands, who was obviously sick orinjured, and it then became absolutely necessary for the officers to search thedefendant to discover his identity, next of kin, and possible information whichwould indicate that he was suffering some chronic disease. State v Agent (1968)101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846.

-the defendant was found unconscious in a motel room and the police searched hisjacket and bag looking for identification, noting that the Fourth Amendment onlydenounces warrantless searches that are unreasonable and that whether a givensearch is reasonable depends upon the facts, circumstances and exigenciesconfronting the officers conducting the search, and finding the exigenciesconfronting the officers in this case similar to those confronting the police inState v Agent (1968) 101 NJ Super 190, 243 A2d 846, this section. State v Jordan(1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617.

[*6] Where person found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent, or otherwiseunable to provide identification or information regarding condition

[*6a] Search held reasonable

Where a person was found semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwiseunable to provide identification or information regarding his or her condition,the courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search ofthe person or personal effects for identification or something which would accountfor the defendant's condition was reasonable.

In Evans v State (1978, Fla App D3) 364 So 2d 93, cert den (Fla) 373 So 2d 457,the court rejected the defendant's contention that a search of her purse wasillegal where the officer was unable to communicate with her and searched thepurse for something which would delineate a medical disability that could accountfor her condition. A highway patrolman saw the defendant pull her car off the roadand stop. He approached the vehicle, but was unable to gain her attention,

although he observed that her eyes were open. The officer then gained entry to thecar and, with the defendant unable to communicate, examined her purse to inspecther driver's license. After calling the rescue squad, a search was made todetermine the cause of her condition, and the officer found cocaine and chargedher with its possession. The court found that the search was not unreasonable inthe exigent circumstances.

Where police officers answered a radio call that a man was "down" in the hallwayof a hotel and found him lying on the floor, disoriented and incoherent, the courtin People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139, held that a search of hisperson for identification did not constitute a violation of the defendant's rightsagainst unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution. When the officers found the defendant, there was no

indication of alcohol on his breath nor any evidence of drinking, but he was verydisoriented and incoherent. They informed him that he was under arrest fordisorderly conduct. When he failed to answer questions concerning his identity,what he was doing there, where he lived, and whether he had a wallet, the officersthen searched him, seeking some identification, and in the process found severalpackets of marijuana in his back pocket. The defendant argued that the search wasillegal because it exceeded the scope of a search incident to arrest, which waslimited to a search for weapons and to prevent concealment of the fruits of thecrime for which he was being arrested. The court did not agree, noting that theofficers were summoned to investigate the circumstances involving a distressedperson and they found him in a stupor, apparently not caused by alcohol, totally



disoriented and unable to answer questions regarding his identity or condition.The court continued that, for all the officers knew, the defendant may have been adiabetic in shock or a distressed cardiac patient, so they were faced with anemergency situation where the welfare of the individual was at stake. The courtconcluded that under the circumstances of the case, the search of the defendantand the seizure of narcotics from his person were reasonable and lawful and not aviolation of his constitutional rights.

[*6b] Search held not reasonable

Where the person was semiconscious, disoriented, incoherent or otherwise unable toprovide identification or information regarding his or her condition, the courtsin the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of the personor personal effects was not justified by the emergency aid exception to thewarrant requirement, apparently because the motive for the search was not medicalassistance.

In Schraff v State (1975, Alaska) 544 P2d 834, the court held that the emergencyaid exception to the warrant requirement did not apply where the officer went tothe scene for the purpose of conducting a narcotics investigation, the defendantwas not totally unconscious and was accompanied by a companion who was somewhat

responsive, and the officer admitted that several motives, including crime scenedetection, prompted the search of the defendant's wallet. The officer was calledto a bar by another officer who had discovered marijuana in a car that thedefendant and his companion had driven off the road. Upon arriving at the bar, theofficer found the defendant and his companion in a seemingly intoxicated state,but there were no alcoholic containers near the men and no smell of alcohol intheir vicinity. After giving them Miranda warnings, the officer asked thedefendant for identification. When the defendant did not respond, his companionreached into the defendant's pocket and produced his wallet. While looking foridentification in the wallet, the officer discovered a folded aluminum foil packetwhich contained cocaine. The court noted that, because of the defendant'scondition at the time of the search, it was possible to argue that the officer'sconduct was designed to provide crucial information in the rendition of emergency

aid, but determined that the facts in this case were distinguishable from casesfrom other jurisdictions where the emergency aid exception had been held to apply.n31

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n31 See United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, 5; Vauss v� United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250, 5; People v Gonzales (1960,� 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, 8; People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d� 161, 265 NE2d 139, 6[a]; State v Miller (1972, Mo) 486 SW2d 435, 5; and State� � v Jordan (1971) 79 Wash 2d 480, 487 P2d 617, 5.�

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Where there was no evidence introduced to suggest that the defendant, who wasunresponsive when asked by the police to produce identification, was in need ofpolice assistance for medical reasons, the court in People v Rossi (1981, 2d Dist)102 Ill App 3d 1069, 58 Ill Dec 291, 430 NE2d 233, held that there were no exigentcircumstances such as life-saving actions authorizing a search as an exception tothe general rule against warrantless searches. The police officer asked thedefendant and his companion to pull their car over because one of the tail lightswas out. The companion told the officer that the car belonged to the defendant.When asked for identification, the defendant was incoherent. The officer thenremoved the defendant's wallet to search it for identification and found a



controlled substance. As one justification for the search, the state relied uponcases which authorized searches of incoherent persons for identification wherethere was no probable cause to arrest but the defendant's physical conditionsuggested a potentially serious illness requiring attention. n32 However, thecourt pointed out that neither officer suggested at any time that they had concernfor the defendant's well-being except that he might fall on the rutted shoulder ofthe road upon emerging from the vehicle, and this concern hardly would besufficient to warrant the intrusion to the person required by a search for a

wallet nor did the officers attribute the search to that reason.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n32 See People v Smith (1970) 47 Ill 2d 161, 265 NE2d 139, 6[a]; People v� Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d 492, 7[a]; and People v Gonzales (1960, 4th� Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, 8.�

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Where the police officer found the defendant in a semiconscious condition, wasunable to communicate with her, and looked inside the defendant's jacket pocketand found an opaque bottle marked "Tylenol," n33 the court in State v Underwood

(April 28, 1982, Ohio App, 12th Dist, Clermont Co) Slip Op No. 1113 (available onLEXIS(R)), held that the medical emergency exception to the warrant requirementwas not applicable here because the contents of the bottle were retained by thepolice and not used to determine medical treatment. The state contended that thewarrantless search of the defendant's jacket fell within the scope of the medicalemergency exception to the warrant requirement, urging the court to adopt thisexception, citing United States v Dunavan (1973, CA6 Tenn) 485 F2d 201, 5, and� State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1, 10[b]. The court indicated that� the trial court was willing to accept such an exception but found that the factswere inapposite to the state's argument. According to the trial court, the searchof the jacket could be within the exception to gain information with regard tomedicine, and finding the bottle of Tylenol would be justified under Dunavan,allowing the bottle to be opened because of a medical emergency, but found that

such was not the case here where the contents of the bottle were retained by thepolice and not used to determine medical treatment. The trial court noted that theresult would have been different had the contents been delivered to the life squadfor possible treatment purposes either with the life squad itself, or at thehospital. The court concluded that the trial court's findings were supported bythe record, where the officer kept the bottle and, when the defendant wastransported to the hospital, the officer did not make anyone aware of the natureof the contents of the bottle.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n33 Although the opinion does not say, it is assumed that the bottle containedsome sort of illicit drug and the defendant was charged with its possession.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

IV. Other Searches

[*7] Shooting victims

[*7a] In general

The courts in the following cases held that the particular warrantless search of ashooting victim's person or personal effects was justified by a need to determine



the victim's identity or other information related to treatment and was thereforereasonable.

Where the defendant's wallet had been taken at the scene of the shooting by aninvestigating officer who had found the defendant seriously wounded and in asemiconscious condition, the court in People v Smith (1969) 44 Ill 2d 82, 254 NE2d492, held that the removal of the wallet from his person by the officer and thesubsequent examination of the wallet at the police station did not infringe upon

the defendant's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United StatesConstitution. The defendant was found guilty of murdering his wife's paramour andappealed on the ground that his conviction was based on evidence obtained throughan illegal search. In the defendant's wallet, the police found a note addressed tothe police stating his intention to kill his wife's lover. The note was discoveredat the police station when officers examined and inventoried the personal effectsof the defendant following the gunfight between him and the victim. While holdingthat the question regarding the admissibility of this evidence was waived becauseit was not presented at trial, the court commented that it believed that theconduct of the investigating officer, who secured the defendant's wallet and gunat the scene of the shooting, was reasonable and an appropriate police measure.The defendant was found at the scene of the shooting semiconscious and bleedingfrom gunshot wounds. The court pointed out that a wallet typically contains cards

or other material identifying the owner, and that one reason for this is to permitthe owner's identification in the event of illness or accident, and it is commonfor identifying material to also contain the identification of a person to benotified in case of an emergency. The court found that the taking of the wallet ofthe semiconscious man was not unreasonable conduct for the officer, and the factthat it was apparently not necessary to use the wallet to identify him did notdisturb the reasonableness of its being taken. The court also found that securingthe wallet under the circumstances was reasonable and that it would not beunreasonable to consider that the wallet might provide information of value in thehandling of the wounded man, such as blood type, intolerance to medication, andthe like. The court also noted that, considering the pressing circumstances whichconfronted the officer, including the necessity of having the defendant brought toa hospital as soon as possible, it was understandable that he did not examine and

inventory the wallet at the scene, but that this was done at the station house inthe presence of a policeman identified as the inventory officer. Finally, thecourt found that the discovery of the note, which was addressed to the police, didnot convert the inventory process into an illegal search. n34

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n34 The instant case was distinguished in People v Tyler (1991, 5th Dist) 210Ill App 3d 833, 155 Ill Dec 240, 569 NE2d 240, 3, where the wallet was taken� from the victim at the hospital, so the officers did not have the same need tosearch it to determine the victim's identity or information needed in handlinghim.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

In Floyd v State (1975) 24 Md App 363, 330 A2d 677, the court held that a searchof a gunshot victim's clothing for identification was both legally permissible andhighly necessary, so that contraband inadvertently discovered was admissible inevidence. The police officer responded to a radio message to investigate ashooting and found the defendant in a prone position on the floor, bleedingprofusely from a wound in the right arm, two in the right leg and three in theleft leg. While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, the officer asked thedefendant his name and received no response. At the hospital, the defendant'sclothes were cut from his body so that he could receive treatment. Upon being



informed that the defendant was stable, the officer asked him if he wanted totalk. The defendant responded that he was shot and had no time to talk. Believinghe had a possible homicide on his hands, the officer searched the defendant'sclothes for identification as well as for evidence that might be useful in ahomicide investigation. In the defendant's pants pockets, he found what proved tobe heroin. The court held that the search of the clothing was permissible because,when the officer was unable to obtain the defendant's identity, he not only had aright but a duty to look in his clothing for the purpose of endeavoring to

determine the shooting victim's identity.

In response to the defendant's claim that a "hold-up" note, found when a searchwas made of his person in an effort to establish his identity so that the consentof relatives to an emergency operation might be sought, should have been excludedas the fruit of an illegal arrest, the court in State v Patrick (1970) 255 SC 130,177 SE2d 545, held that it would be pointless to inquire whether the defendant wasunder arrest because the search was to establish his identity and was incident tohospital procedures rather than to an arrest. The defendant was shot in an attemptto rob a liquor store. When the police found the defendant, they promptly took himto the hospital emergency room where the search was made. The court noted that, inthis emergency, the defendant was treated no differently than a helpless accidentvictim. n35

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n35 While it is unclear from the opinion who performed the search, it appearsto have been performed by the police officers.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

[*7b] After identification found

The court in the following case held that, while the search of a shooting victim'sperson or personal effects for identification was reasonable, it was notreasonable to continue the search after finding identification, concluding that

the sole purpose was to find evidence of criminal activity.

In Shepherd v State (1977, Fla App D1) 343 So 2d 1349, cert den (Fla) 352 So 2d175, the court held that while a search of the shooting victim's wallet foridentification was reasonable, after finding identification, it was not reasonableto search a plastic bag found in the wallet. The defendant was taken to thehospital emergency room and a deputy sheriff was dispatched to the hospital toinvestigate the shooting. The medical staff had not identified the victim, so thedeputy searched his billfold for identification. In the currency section he founda small bag, but could not see the contents. After talking to the defendant, thedeputy searched the billfold and the bag and found phencyclidine (PCP). The courtfound that the second search of the billfold was for the sole purpose of obtainingevidence of criminal activity.

[*8] Stabbing victims

The court in the following case held the particular warrantless search of astabbing victim's person or personal effects was justified by a need to determinethe victim's identity or other information related to treatment and was thereforereasonable.

Where the defendant was found either unconscious or in severe shock and unable toanswer questions, with a ghastly and possibly fatal knife wound, the court inPeople v Gonzales (1960, 4th Dist) 182 Cal App 2d 276, 5 Cal Rptr 920, held that a



search of the defendant's clothing for identification at the hospital wasreasonable, and the police officer was not required to close his eyes tocontraband simply because it was not connected with the initial purpose of thesearch. When the police discovered the defendant, an ambulance was called and hewas taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, his clothes were cut away andgone through for purposes of identification. Four marijuana cigarettes were found.The doctor, two nurses, and a police officer were present during the search madeby an attendant, apparently at the request of the police officer. The ambulance

driver testified that such a search was routine procedure for identification ofinjured people "in shock" in emergency cases. The defendant contended that thenarcotics were discovered during an unlawful search and therefore were erroneouslyadmitted as evidence. The court found the circumstances warranted the policeofficer to clearly establish the stabbing victim's identity.

[*9] Persons known to be intoxicated

The courts in the following cases held that a warrantless search of the person orpersonal effects to identify a person known to be intoxicated was not justified bythe medical emergency exception to the warrant requirement.

Police officer who took defendant into protective custody based on defendant's

apparent intoxication had reasonable cause to search defendant, during course ofwhich search officer found illegal drugs, where officer had been told thatdefendant had also taken four or five pills and, when asked in ambulance whatpills he had taken, defendant answered that they were in his pocket. State vHutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027.

In State v Nelson (March 21, 1985, Kan App) Slip Op No. 57,049 (available onLEXIS(R)), the court held that the emergency doctrine did not justify a search ofthe defendant's bag where the police officer testified that he knew theunconscious defendant was intoxicated and was looking for identification. Theofficer observed a car in a parking lot with the interior light on and the enginerunning. A female appeared to be sitting behind the wheel. When the officerreturned 5 or 10 minutes later, the car was still there. When he approached the

car, he found the defendant slumped over the wheel. He rapped on the glass, butshe did not move, so he opened the door and tried to rouse her. He smelled alcoholon her breath, and testified that he did not fear a heart attack, but just thoughtshe passed out from drinking too much. He testified that his next thought was tofind her identification so he could take her home. He began to look through thecar and found a bag on the floor of the back seat. When he opened the bag, hefound drug paraphernalia and cocaine. The defendant was charged with possession ofcocaine and moved to suppress the evidence found in the bag. The trial court foundthat the warrantless search of the bag was illegal and that the seized fruits ofthe search were inadmissible. The state relied on the so-called emergencyexception to the warrant requirement, which the court noted applied when thepurpose of the search was not the gathering of evidence, but the protection andaid of people in distress. The court pointed out that there were three criteria to

be met in determining whether a warrantless search of the bag fell within theemergency exception. The first, the court continued, was an objective test: didthe officer have reasonable grounds to believe there was an emergency at hand andan immediate need for assistance; second, a subjective test: was the officerprimarily motivated by an intent to arrest or to seize evidence, or to render aid;and third, a scope test: was there a sound basis to associate the emergency withthe area to be searched, in this case, the bag. The court found that the officerknew at the time of the search that the defendant was not medically endangered,but was only intoxicated from the use of alcohol, so the record did not supportthe state's assertion that the officer subjectively or objectively believed he wasfaced with a medical emergency. The court also noted that the Oregon Supreme Court



in State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143, cert den 457 US 1111, 73 L Ed 2d1321, 102 S Ct 2915, this section, had held that ordinary alcohol intoxication wasnot a medical emergency justifying an immediate search of an intoxicated person'spurse.

See City of Fargo v Ternes (1994, ND) 522 NW2d 176, 4[a].�

In State v Newman (1981) 292 Or 216, 637 P2d 143, cert den 457 US 1111, 73 L Ed 2d

1321, 102 S Ct 2915, the court held that it was not reasonable for the police in anoncriminal and nonemergency situation to search the property of an intoxicatedperson for identification at the time the person is taken into custody fortransportation to a treatment or holding facility. A police officer found thedefendant illegally parked and she appeared to be intoxicated. His attempts todetermine her identity were unsuccessful. Another officer arrived at the scene,handcuffed the defendant, and placed her in the back of one of the patrol cars totake her either to a detox or booking facility. They did not intend to charge herwith a violation of any law. After the defendant was placed in the patrol car, theofficer went to her vehicle and found a purse on the ground. The purse was closedand he opened it without consent for the sole purpose of finding out who she was.When he first opened the purse, he found a plastic bag containing white crosspills, and, on further search, discovered additional pills and a wallet

identifying the defendant. The defendant was charged with possession of acontrolled substance and moved to suppress on the ground that the evidence wasunreasonably seized without a warrant and in violation of federal and stateconstitutions, statutes, and case law. The court noted that a person who isintoxicated in a public place may be taken home or to a treatment facility by thepolice, or, if there is no appropriate treatment facility, may be taken to a cityor county jail where the person may be held until no longer intoxicated. The courtfurther noted that neither party contended that the officer was conducting acriminal investigation at the time he opened the purse and that the facts of thiscase did not present the officer with a medical emergency justifying an immediatesearch. The court concluded that an individual's expectation of privacy in a pursewas probably greater than in any other property except the clothing worn by theperson, and it did not think that it was necessary for the police officer to know

the name of the person that he was going to transport to the treatment or holdingfacility.

[*10] Victims of apparent drug overdose


The court in the following case held that the particular warrantless search of theperson or personal effects of the apparent victim of a drug overdose wasreasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers andtheir obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment.

See State v Hutchins (1994, Fla App D2) 636 So 2d 552, 19 FLW D 1027, 9.�

In State v Auman (1986, Minn App) 386 NW2d 818, the court held that evidencediscovered by police officers during the course of a warrantless search foridentification of a drug overdose victim was admissible under the emergencyexception to the Fourth Amendment. The police officers responded to a call thatsomebody had overdosed and found the defendant acting irrationally. The defendanttold them that someone had put drugs in his drink and he needed help. The officersfelt that the defendant was overdosing on drugs. The officers called for anambulance and then tried to learn the defendant's identity. They explained to thedefendant that they had to determine his identity so they could notify family andfriends of his condition and assist the ambulance crew when they arrived. The



defendant gave the officers permission to remove his wallet to look foridentification. An officer found what he believed to be the defendant's wallet,but which turned out to be an eyeglass case. Inside the case, the officer founddrug paraphernalia. The officer testified that he did not expect to findidentification in the case and did not know what he would find. The trial courtheld that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied here becausethe officers searched the defendant with a reasonable belief that they were facedwith a medical emergency, but went on to conclude that the search was improperly

extended to the eyeglass case. The court, however, found that the search wasreasonable and justified by the exigent circumstances facing the officers andtheir obvious desire to facilitate medical treatment. The court found that, basedon Vauss v United States (1966) 125 US App DC 228, 370 F2d 250, 5, and United� States v Haley (1978, CA8 Mo) 581 F2d 723, cert den 439 US 1005, 58 L Ed 2d 681,99 S Ct 618, 5, had the defendant been completely unconscious rather than in a� drug-induced stupor, a complete search of him for identification would have beenreasonable, and did not believe that the reasonableness of this good-faith searchby concerned police officers turned on such inconsequential factualdissimilarities, noting that if the police had not opened the eyeglass case untilafter they determined that the defendant had no identification anywhere else, asearch of the "closed container" would have been completely justified.


The court in the following case held that a warrantless search of the person orpersonal effects of the apparent victim of a drug overdose was not reasonablewhere it was not motivated by a perceived need to render medical assistance.

In State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1 (ovrld on other grounds n36 byState v Weide, 155 Wis 2d 537, 455 NW2d 899), the court held that the medicalemergency exception to the warrant requirement could not justify a warrantlesssearch of the defendant's purse where the police officer testified that the reasonfor searching the purse was to inventory the contents of the defendant's car. Thedefendant injected himself with heroin and was found unconscious in a motel roomwhich had been rented by someone else. The defendant regained consciousness when

the manager left to call the police, put the heroin and syringes into his purse,put the purse in the trunk of his car and returned to the motel room. When thepolice arrived, they arrested him for trespassing in the motel. The officertestified that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and wasdrooling from the mouth and wearing "mussed" clothes. Because the defendant wasbelieved to be a trespasser, the motel manager asked that his car be removed fromthe parking lot. The officer then went out to make an inventory search of the car.In the trunk, he found a purse containing heroin. The court of appeals upheld thewarrantless search under the emergency exception on the ground that a reasonableman "could believe" that the defendant had overdosed on a drug, and might be indanger of losing his life. The court of appeals did not find it fatal that theofficer did not conduct the search because he thought a medical emergency existed,so long as, viewed objectively, the circumstances justified that action. The court

found that unless the search or intrusion was motivated by the perceived need toact in the face of an emergency or exigency, the emergency doctrine is notapplicable and will not justify the search, reasoning that conditioning theavailability of the emergency doctrine exception on the officer's motivation ismandated by the doctrine's rationale that the preservation of human life isparamount to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court setforth the test for a valid emergency warrantless search under the emergencydoctrine as requiring a two-step analysis: first, the search is invalid unless thesearching officer is actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid orassistance; and second, even though the requisite motivation is found to exist,until it can be found that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have



thought an emergency existed, the search is invalid. The court concluded that boththe subjective and objective tests must be met.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n36 Overruled not on the medical emergency exception, but on that part of theopinion addressing whether the search of a purse in an automobile was justified asan inventory search.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

[*11] Victims of apparent mental illness


The court in the following case held that where police took a person into custodybecause they reasonably believed him in need of immediate care for mental illness,they were justified in searching him for anything which might be reasonablyrelated to his treatment.

Where the defendant stipulated that he was suffering an emotional condition and

needed help because of his emotional condition at the time of the search, thecourt in State v Marsh (1969) 1 Or App 351, 462 P2d 459, held that the police,when lawfully taking a person into custody under ORS 426.215, which authorizedtaking into custody any person who the officer reasonably believed was dangerousto himself or any other person and who he had reasonable cause to believe was inneed of immediate care or treatment for mental illness, had the right to searchthat person, not only for such articles as may be lawfully seized following avalid arrest, but for such further objects, including pills or other apparentmedication, as may appear reasonably related to diagnosing or treating hisapparent mental or physical condition. While transporting the defendant to thehospital, the police searched him and discovered marijuana. The court noted thatthe apparent purpose of the statute was to secure immediate care and treatment ofthe person taken into custody under it, and that seizure from his person of

articles reasonably related to the accomplishment of this purpose was proper. Thecourt continued that the fact that under such rule an object seized may be anarcotic or other contraband did not affect the right to seize it, pointing outthat the prompt identification of the substance seized may well be the key toeffective emergency treatment. The court concluded that the fact that the articleproved to be contraband did not render the seizure invalid, nor was the state,having validly seized it, required to close its eyes to the fact that itspossession may also be a crime. n37

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n37 But see State v Watson (1989) 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201, 4[b], where the� court held that, even if the police officer's search of the accident victim's

purse was necessitated by the demands of immediate medical attention, evidence ofcriminal activity discovered is not admissible in a criminal trial under ArticleI, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

- - - - - - - - End Footnotes - - - - - - - -

Police officer responding to call about fight between defendant juvenile and hermother had reasonable cause to believe medical emergency existed, and narcoticsfound in defendant's purse were properly admitted in defendant's prosecution forunlawful possession of methamphetamine, where defendant had been observed to beemotionally unstable, her parents had said that she had threatened suicide and was



carrying knives, and officer searched defendant's purse to see if it containedknives. State v Lowrimore (1992) 67 Wash App 949, 841 P2d 779.

Since defendant was in acutely paranoid state when he was seized for mental healthevaluation, police officer reasonably searched for weapons before exposing himselfand others to close contact with defendant; moreover, officer was not bound tolimit his search to weapons, and had obligation to identify and remove anythingwith which defendant might harm himself and others, including street drugs. West's

RCWA 71.05.150(4)(b). State v. Dempsey, 88 Wash. App. 918, 947 P.2d 265 (Div. 31997).


The court in the following case held that the allegation by the police that theirwarrantless search of a person, who they were investigating to determine if he wasmentally fit to be on duty as a security guard, was justified by the emergencyexception to the warrant requirement was not supported by the evidence.

Where the police officers, in response to a telephone call made to a securityagency's dispatcher by a department store security guard, went to the store at themanager's request to ascertain whether the guard was fit to be on duty, the court

in State v Hampton (1982) 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744, held that the officer'sfrisk of the guard was not justified by the emergency exception to the warrantrequirement. The dispatcher received a call from a person who purported to be thestore's guard and who stated that he was armed with mace, and that, if any of themannequins moved, he was going to mace them. Five police officers were dispatchedto the store and the manager requested that they locate the guard to ascertainwhether he was fit to be on duty. When they found the guard, he was not acting inan unusual manner and did not appear to be unstable. The guard was then patteddown by two of the officers who discovered marijuana and hashish. In response tothe guard's motion to suppress, the state, as a last resort, suggested that thefrisk was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, whichapplies when a person is in need of immediate aid. The court found that thissuggestion was not supported by the evidence which showed that the sole

explanation given by the police for the contact was to ascertain whether the guardwas fit to be on duty, and the officers made no inquiry of the guard about hismental or medical condition. The court also pointed out that the state concededthat when the officers contacted the guard there was no apparent emergency.

[*12] Domestic violence


Officer's entry and subsequent warrantless search of defendants' home wasjustified; officer had received report of domestic violence in home, caller toldofficer that she and female defendant had been hit by male defendant, there weresigns of recent disturbance at home, and female defendant refused to allow officer

to enter home, which could have indicated that female defendant was hiding maledefendant in home, possibly against her will. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v.Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997), review denied, (Sept. 23,1997).

[*12b] Search held unreasonable

Report of domestic violence does not per se establish exigent circumstancesjustifying warrantless entry into private residence; each case must be decidedupon its particular facts and circumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v.Gilbert, 24 Kan. App. 2d 159, 942 P.2d 660 (1997), review denied, (Sept. 23,



1997).

[*index]INDEX

Accident report, completing, 3, 4[b]��

Aircraft, 5�

Alcohol, 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9��

Allergies to medications, 3, 7[a]��

Angel dust, 3�

Arrest, intent to, 3�

Automobile accidents, 3, 4��

Bank robbery, 5�

Blood type, 3, 7[a]��

Car accidents, 3, 4��

"Closed container", 10[a]�

Cocaine, 3, 5, 6, 9��

Coherence or incoherence, 3, 4[a], 6��

Comment and summary, 2�

Concealed weapons, 3, 5��

Consciousness, 3-7[a]��

Controlled substances, 3 et seq.��

Convulsions, 5�

Crack cocaine, 5�

Danger to life or safety, 3�

Diabetic condition, 3, 6[a]��

Disorderly conduct, 6[a]�

Disorientation, 3, 6��

Drug overdose, 10�

Drugs and narcotics, 3 et seq.��

Drunkenness, 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9��

Emergency operation, relatives' consent, 7[a]�

Eyeglass case, 10[a]�

Family and relatives, 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a]��

Firearms, 4[a], 5��

Friends, notification of, 5, 10[a]��

Froth on mouth, 5�

"Good Samaritan" motives, 5�

Hashish, 11[b]�

Heroin, 3, 5, 7[a], 10[b]��

History, medical, 4[a], 5��

Hold-up note, 7[a]�

Homicide, 7[a]�

Hotels and motels, 5, 6[a], 10[b]��

Incoherence or coherence, 3, 4[a], 6��

Intent or purpose for search, 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a]��

Intolerance to certain medications, 3, 7[a]��

Intoxicating liquors, 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9��

Introduction to annotation, 1�

Inventory search of car, 10[b]�

Knife wound, 8�

Liquor, 3, 4[a], 5, 6, 9��

Marijuana, 3, 4[b]-6, 8, 11��

Medical alert cards, 3, 5��

Medical history, 4[a], 5��

Medical professionals, treatment by, 3-5��

Medication, search for, 11[a]�

Mental illness, 11�



Money taken in bank robbery, 5�

Motels and hotels, 5, 6[a], 10[b]��

Motivation or purpose for search, 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a]��

Motorcycle accident, 3�

Motor vehicle accidents, 3, 4��

Murder, 7[a]�

Note, hold-up, 7[a]�

Note addressed to police, 7[a]�

Notification of other persons, 3, 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a]��

One-way street, 4[a]�

Overdose of drugs, 10�

Pain, 3�

Paramedics, treatment by, 3-5��

PCP, 3�

Permit, concealed weapon, 3�

Phencyclidine, 7[b]�

Possession of controlled substance, 3 et seq.��

Possession of firearm by convicted felon, 4[a]�

Practice pointers, 2[b]�

Preliminary matters, 1, 2��

Purpose or motivation for search, 3, 5, 6[b], 7[b], 9-11[a]��

Related annotations, 1[b]�

Relatives, 4[a], 5, 7[a], 10[a]��

Report, accident, completing, 3, 4[b]��

Restroom floor, 5�

Robbery, 5, 7[a]��

Scope of annotation, 1[a]�

Security guard's fitness, 11[b]�

Seizures, 5�

Semi-consciousness, 4, 6, 7[a]��

Shooting victims, 7�

Stabbing victims, 8�

Summary and comment, 2�

Treatment by medical professionals, 3-5��

Unconsciousness, 5�

Unknown ailment, 5, 6��

Vehicular accidents, 3, 4��

Weapons, 3, 4[a], 5��

Source: All Sources : Federal Legal - U.S. : Federal Court Cases and ALR,Combined CourtsTerms: paramedic or emergency medical technician and law review (Edit Search)View: FullDate/Time: Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 5:12 PM EST

About LEXIS-NEXIS | Terms and Conditions

alr emergency search

Documents