Facts
In September, 2015 a grandmother did not arrive to pick up her eight-year old grandson from school despite previously always arriving on time to pick up the child. The school contacted the police after several hours, who sent officers to the grandmother’s last known address. Upon arriving at her residence police noticed a car in the driveway that was not parked straight, had an open trunk, and severe front-end damage. The officer’s were also aware of recent complaints at the residence concerning a male who had been evaluated for psychiatric issues.
After receiving no response to knocking on the door, ringing the doorbell, or calling the grandmother’s phone, police were alerted by the grandmother’s relative to a tarp covering a large object on the floor just inside the home. Upon viewing the tarp through the window of the front door, the police suspected the tarp may be covering a body. The police additionally learned that the grandmother was caring for a two-month old infant and was allegedly in danger of retaliation because of her daughter’s testimony in a prior human trafficking case. Fearing that the grandmother and the infant were in immediate danger, the officers made the decision to enter the house. Upon entry, police discovered the grandmother and the infant, deceased, under the tarp, a deceased man lying on a couch, and Tran, holding a gun, standing at the bottom of the stairs inside the house. The officers took Tran into custody where he was charged with three counts of aggravated murder.
Issue
In both the district court, and on interlocutory appeal before the Supreme Court of Utah, Tran asks whether the emergency aid exception of the Fourth Amendment supports the officer’s actions in the warrantless entry of the home. Tran also brings the issue of whether Utah’s analogous search and seizure provision found in article 1 section 14 of the Utah Constitution provides heightened protection against warrantless searches and seizures to residents of Utah.
Rule
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures conducted without a properly issued warrant. A determination of whether a search is reasonable is evaluated based on the “totality of circumstances” available to police officers when the search was conducted. This approach allows courts to review officer decisions in the context they occur in, rather than requiring police conduct to meet a specific, bright-line test (Ohio v. Robinette). A warrantless search may be considered reasonable if the search falls within the parameters of an established exception to the warrant requirement. The emergency aid exception is one such example, allowing officers to intervene when a person is in need of immediate aid to prevent loss of life or serious injury from occurring (Mincey v. Arizona). Police must have an “objectively reasonable” basis for believing their actions are necessary to provide immediate assistance (Michigan v. Fisher). This means that a similarly-situated officer within the circumstances of a given case would also find the need for such a search to be reasonable.
While interpretations of rights within the Federal Constitution constitute a minimum level of protection that must be uniformly abided by (the federal floor), states are free to establish heightened levels of protection for similar rights enshrined in state constitutions. Article 1 section 14 of the Utah Constitution contains an analogous provision to the Fourth Amendment, using near-identical language in protecting residents of Utah against unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. The Utah Supreme Court has established that when interpreting the Utah Constitution the Court relies on both the textual language and “original public meaning” of the document, meaning the common interpretation at ratification. The Court may determine that either factor justifies a departure from the federal floor in enhancing the protection of rights under the Utah Constitution.
Analysis
Determining whether the officer’s search was objectively reasonable in this case requires analyzing the circumstances taking place at the time. First, police were aware that it was very unusual for the grandmother to ever be late in picking up her grandson from school, and she was not responding to phone calls or knocking on the door. Second, there were several suspicious circumstances related to the home itself including the damaged car with an open trunk, prior complaints made about the residence, and the tarp covering an unknown object that looked like it could be a body. Taken together, these circumstances could have led an objectively reasonable officer to conclude that further investigation was required. The knowledge that the grandmother was caring for a two-month-old infant, and was also potentially at-risk of violent retaliation raised the urgency even further. Given these circumstances, the officer’s conduct was situated within the emergency aid exception of the Fourth Amendment.
The article 1 section 14 prohibition on specifically “unreasonable” searches implies the existence of circumstances that would be reasonable to conduct a warrantless search. Furthermore, while the original public meaning of section 14 at ratification describes a general presumption for the warrant requirement, history does not indicate that residents of Utah would have considered a warrantless search providing emergency aid to be unreasonable.
Conclusion
The Court ruled unanimously that Tran’s claim fails under both the Fourth Amendment and article 1 section 14 analysis. Given the totality of circumstances known to the officers an objectively reasonable belief was had that immediate intervention was necessary to provide emergency aid. The Court also chooses to remain in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court in interpreting Utah’s search and seizure provision as requiring a standard of objective reasonableness. Tran’s motion to suppress evidence found inside the home failed.