Criminal Procedures: Cases, Statutes, and Executive Materials
- Miller, Wright
- 3rd Edition
- ISBN: 9780735563247
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | State v. Michael Dube | 655 A.2d 338 | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995 | |
| 7 | State v. Michael Lovegren | 51 P.3d 471 | Supreme Court of Montana, 2002 |  Download |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
State v. Michael Dube Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995 655 A.2d 338 Pg. 6 |
While accompanying an apartment building custodian into defendant's dwelling in response to a sewage/water leak, the police discovered puddles of urine, open diapers, and feces throughout the apartment. After the arrival of social services and a police photographer, the defendant returned home and was charged with endangering the welfare of a child. He argues that the officers' presence on the premises was an unlawful violation of the Fourth Amendment, and all incidents (i.e., photographs) should thus be suppressed. | When an officer is lawfully on the premises for an emergency, observations made by means of his natural senses from his natural vantage point, do not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes; however, continued presence and further searches after the emergency, is unlawful unless justified by one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. |
|
State v. Michael Lovegren Supreme Court of Montana, 2002 51 P.3d 471 Pg. 7 |
Police observed defendant sleeping in the driver's seat of a car parked alongside a highway with its motor running but headlights off. When defendant did not respond to knocking on the window, an officer opened the car door, startling defendant, who stated "I was drinking." After failing sobriety tests, defendant is taken to the station and arrested and later convicted, but seeks to suppress all evidence obtained in the investigative stop on grounds that the police lacked particularized suspicion that an offense was committed or was imminent, thus rendering the stop unjustified. | Under the form of the "community caretaker doctrine" recognized in this jurisdiction, when objective, articulable facts would lead an experienced police officer to suspect that a citizen is in need of help or is in imminent peril, then that officer has a right to investigate. Once the officer is assured that the citizen is no longer in need of assistance, any actions beyond that constitute a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment and state constitutional protections. When the officer opened the door to check on defendant, the officer had not yet "seized" defendant. |
© 2010 Courtroom Connect, Inc. All rights reserved.