LEADERSHIP
the Court ’ s opinion ( only four pages ), the Court had little trouble unanimously concluding that it does not .
Caretaking functions are activities that police officers undertake to ensure the public welfare that are divorced from law enforcement or investigatory endeavors . The Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the warrant requirement in order to accommodate such functions , but it has limited its application to the context of vehicles . In Cady v . Dombrowski , the Court held that a warrantless search of a disabled and impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment . 413 U . S . 433 ( 1973 ). In reaching this conclusion , the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “ public highways ” are often called to discharge noncriminal “ community caretaking functions ,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or providing aid to motorists . Id . at 441 . The Court was careful to emphasize the “ constitutional difference ” between automobiles -- which are near the bottom of the totem pole for constitutional protection -- and homes , which are at the pinnacle of the Fourth Amendment ’ s privacy interests . Id . at 439 .
Unlike the doctrine of exigent circumstances , the community caretaking exception contains no requirement that a need be particularly compelling or urgent to justify an intrusion .
14 SUMMER . 2021
The exception ’ s laxity explains its limited application to the relatively low-privacy context of automobiles . Even so , some courts have treated that vice as a virtue that renders the broad umbrella of “ community caretaking ” an expedient means to uphold warrantless intrusions into the home . The First Circuit did just that in Caniglia , validating the officers ’ entry into the home simply because their efforts to protect Mr . and Mrs . Caniglia were “ distinct from ‘ the normal work of criminal investigation ,’” and fell “ within the realm of reason ,” and generally tracked what the court viewed to be “ sound police procedure .” 953 F . 3d at 123-28 , 132-33 .
At oral argument in Caniglia , the justices foreshadowed their upcoming rejection of the First Circuit ’ s analysis . As Justice Sotomayor put it , “ I am concerned deeply about the First Circuit ’ s claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling … community caretaking responsibilities .” The problem is not so much that officers might enter homes for purposes other than law enforcement ; it is that the community caretaking doctrine lacks sufficient procedural guardrails to protect the privacy rights of residential occupants .
The Supreme Court adopted the community caretaking doctrine expressly for automobiles , not homes . Because the First Circuit applied the
“ community caretaking ” rule beyond automobiles and required the government to make no showing of exigency for a warrantless entry , the Supreme Court concluded that the Circuit Court ’ s holding “ goes beyond anything this Court has recognized .” 141 S . Ct . at 1599 . Revisiting Cady , the Court emphasized that its “ recognition that police officers perform many civic tasks in modern society was just that — a recognition that these tasks exist , and not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere .” Id . at 1600 .
Still , the Justices remain receptive to exigency arguments . Justice Thomas , who ultimately wrote for the unanimous Court , observed at oral argument that the current exception for exigent circumstances is sufficient to accommodate legitimate community caretaking concerns . “ I don ’ t know why we would need another category to cover those examples ,” he commented . In a joint concurrence , Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer noted that Fourth Amendment jurisprudence already permits warrantless entries “ when there is a need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury .” Id . at 1600 . Justice Kavanaugh ’ s concurrence followed the same reasoning :
[ T ] he Court ’ s exigency precedents , as I read them , permit warrantless entries when police officers have an objectively reasonable basis to