Cady v. Dombrowski
413 U.S. 433 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Warrantless searches of vehicles that are part of routine, non-criminal, community caretaking functions to protect public safety are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and do not require a warrant.
Facts:
- Chester Dombrowski, a Chicago police officer, rented a Ford Thunderbird after his own Dodge automobile became disabled in Wisconsin.
- Dombrowski later had a one-car accident in the Thunderbird, crashing it into a bridge abutment.
- Police arriving at the scene found Dombrowski to be drunk and incoherent; he informed them he was a Chicago police officer.
- The Wisconsin police believed Chicago police officers were required to carry their service revolvers at all times but did not find a weapon on Dombrowski's person.
- Because the Thunderbird was disabled and Dombrowski was incapacitated, police had the vehicle towed to a private garage where it was left unsecured.
- Dombrowski was arrested for drunken driving and taken to a hospital, where he lapsed into a coma.
- Several hours after the accident, an officer went to the garage to conduct a search of the Thunderbird for the service revolver, citing standard procedure and the need to protect the public from a firearm falling into the wrong hands.
- During the search of the trunk, the officer discovered several bloody items, which were later linked to the murder of Herbert McKinney.
Procedural Posture:
- Chester J. Dombrowski was convicted of first-degree murder in a Wisconsin state trial court.
- Dombrowski appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction, rejecting his claim that evidence was unconstitutionally seized.
- Dombrowski then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court.
- The District Court denied the petition.
- Dombrowski, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the State as appellee, reversed the district court's decision, holding that the vehicle searches were unconstitutional.
- The warden, Cady, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless search of an automobile, which police have taken into their control after an accident, violate the Fourth Amendment when the search is conducted pursuant to a standard police procedure to secure a firearm believed to be in the car for public safety reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, this warrantless search does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search was reasonable because it was conducted not for investigatory purposes, but as part of a 'community caretaking function' to protect the public. Unlike searches incident to arrest, which are limited by time and place as in Preston v. United States, this search was justified by the distinct, non-criminal police concern for public safety. Because local police have frequent and extensive contact with vehicles for reasons unrelated to criminal investigation, their actions must be judged by a standard of reasonableness. Here, the police reasonably believed a gun was in the unsecured, disabled vehicle, creating a public hazard. The search was a standard, reasonable procedure to secure the weapon, distinguishing it from an investigatory search requiring a warrant.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, this warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment. This search does not fall within any of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. It was not a 'search incident to arrest' because it was too remote in time and place from the arrest. It was not justified by the 'automobile exception' because the vehicle was immobile and secured at a garage, presenting no risk of being moved. The police had ample opportunity to obtain a warrant but failed to do so. Characterizing this as a 'community caretaking' function creates a new, unsupported exception that dangerously erodes the Fourth Amendment's protection against arbitrary government intrusions. The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard privacy against such invasions, regardless of whether the police's stated purpose is criminal investigation or public safety.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'community caretaking' doctrine as a new exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for vehicles. It carves out a category of permissible police conduct that is 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence' relating to a crime. This decision broadens police authority by allowing warrantless searches of vehicles in police control when the purpose is reasonably related to public safety, such as securing a weapon. Future cases will have to define the scope of this doctrine and determine when a police officer's actions shift from caretaking to a pretext for an investigatory search.
Unlock the full brief for Cady v. Dombrowski