Twenty years ago, a three-justice Supreme Court lead opinion adopted a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement. Under the exception, “circumstances short of a perceived emergency may justify a warrantless entry.” (People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, 473.) Those circumstances could include “assisting and protecting citizens in need.” (Id. at p. 467.) Today, in People v. Ovieda, the court calls that exception a “diluted” one and disapproves it.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan holds that “an entry for reasons short of a perceived emergency, or similar exigency, fails to satisfy the relevant constitutional standard.” The superior court thus should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of drug manufacturing equipment and weapons found in his home by police officers who had responded to an emergency call involving his threats to commit suicide, had encountered and restrained the defendant outside the house, and entered without a warrant or consent.
In the 20-year-old case, three justices concurred in the lead opinion’s result, but invoked the exigent circumstances exception to justify the warrantless search. Only Justice Stanley Mosk dissented, asserting there were no exigent circumstances and rejecting the creation of a “community caretaking” exception. He “disagree[d] with the assumption that the warrantless search of a residence, under nonexigent circumstances, can be justified on the paternalistic premise that ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.’ ” (Ray, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 482.) Just last week, the Ninth Circuit vindicated another Justice Mosk dissent.
The court today reverses a divided decision by the Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal.
