Part III: More Exceptions
Another exception is the "community caretaking" exception, which means what the name implies, that the search is performed without a warrant in the interests of the safety of the people or citizenry. In State v. Hill, 115 N.J. 169, 178 (1989), the Court noted that the community caretaking exception has been applied mainly to the context of an impounded vehicle. This exception has been extended under the "Special Needs" rule. When the State can show that the purpose of a warrantless search was to protect the property or safety of its citizens, the courts assess the lawfulness of police conduct on the flexible standard of reasonableness of the police action under the particular circumstances of the case. See State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 275-76 (2004). To the average person, this wouldn't instill a whole lot of confidence. But consider, for examples of what reasonableness means, that the person in the presence of police may have recently been involved in a major crime, Cf. State v. Faretra, 330 N.J.Super. 527 (App. Div.), certif. den. 165 N.J. 530 (2000), or there a weapon is at the scene, Cf. State v. Navarro, 310 N.J.Super. 104 (App. Div.), certif. den. 156 N.J. 382 (1998) and State v. Padilla, 321 N.J.Super. 96 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd 163 N.J. 3 (2000).
Further, "exigent circumstances" is a narrowly construed exception, in the medical sense. The medical emergency exigency test is met upon "a prudent and reasonably based belief that there is a potential medical emergency of unknown dimension." State v. Castro, 238 N.J.Super. 482, 489 (App. Div. 1990). In State v. Scott, 231 N.J.Super. 258, 275 (App. Div. 1989)(Ashbey, J., dissenting), rev'd on dissent below 118 N.J. 406 (1990), the court articulated the three elements to the emergency-aid exception: (1) the existence of an emergency as viewed objectively; (2) a search not motivated by a desire to find evidence; and (3) a nexus between the search and the emergency were satisfied by the facts of the case. The circumstances should present "sufficient exigency created by the information imparted ... to justify immediate action by [the officer], as distinct from retreating and initiating warrant procedures." State v. Castro, supra, 238 N.J.Super. at 487. That should make the average person feel a little better.
These principals are important to know if a police officer knocks on your door because it is the only way you can protect your rights. After the fact, an attorney can help sort through the details to determine the best criminal defense.
