In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court closed a “less demanding exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement earlier this month. The case centered around Willie Ovieda, who threatened to commit suicide in June 2015. After receiving distraught messages from his family, Santa Barbara police descended on Ovieda’s home and formed a perimeter. But by the time police had arrived, Ovieda’s friends had already disarmed him, moving a handgun and two rifles to his garage. Following his friends’ advice, Ovieda voluntarily came outside, and was promptly handcuffed.
Even though police had no reason to believe anyone else was inside or in danger, two officers entered the home anyway with guns drawn, in order to conduct a “protective sweep to secure their premises.” Police never obtained a warrant. Once inside, they smelled “an overwhelmingly strong odor of marijuana.” Ultimately, officers found equipment for a hash oil lab and several firearms, including a 12-gauge shotgun, a .50-caliber rifle, and an Uzi.
Arguing that searching his home without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, Ovieda tried to suppress the evidence but failed. He pled guilty to manufacturing cannabis oil and possessing an “assault weapon” and was sentenced to 18 months of probation.
The state argued that entering Ovieda’s home without a warrant was justified under a “community caretaking” exception. Twenty years ago, in People v. Ray, three justices on the California Supreme Court argued that “circumstances short of a perceived emergency may justify a warrantless entry” into someone’s home. In turn, that would allow police to “resolve the possibility someone inside required assistance or property needed protection.”
This was a radical break from the Fourth Amendment. Courts have long upheld warrantless searches under “exigent circumstances,” or emergency situations that require “swift action” and when police don’t have enough time to get a warrant. Indeed, three other justices would have upheld the search in Ray but based on exigent circumstances. Only one justice, the late Stanley Mosk, dissented: “I strongly disagree 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.’”
But the lead opinion in Ray only garnered three votes, not a majority, meaning it wasn’t actually binding precedent. Nevertheless, the appellate court in Ovieda’s case relied on that opinion when it upheld searching his home as constitutional.
Upholding a “community caretaking” exception would provoke a “sea change in Fourth Amendment law” that would “significantly erode Californians’ privacy,” the ACLU of Southern California argued in an amicus brief. Perversely, it would create a strong “disincentive to call 911 for help” and “make those experiencing a physical or behavioral health crisis less likely to seek aid,” as callers would shy away from dialing 911 if they knew it risked police barging into homes without warrants.
On appeal, the California Supreme Court unanimously decided to slam shut this Fourth Amendment loophole. That “diluted exception was not supported by our prior jurisprudence” and the lead opinion in Ray was “wrong to create one,” Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court. While exigent circumstances are supposed to be based on “articulable facts,” community caretaking instead “purported to permit a warrantless entry if some kind of police assistance might be rendered but the need was merely hypothetical.”
Wow.
