People v. Zabelle
50 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8412 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Police may enter a dwelling without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception if they reasonably believe a person inside is in need of immediate medical aid, and they may forgo the knock-and-announce requirement if they reasonably believe announcing their presence would increase their peril.
Facts:
- Inspector Lawrence Norvall and his partner were at the Delta Hotel to investigate narcotics activity.
- While in a common hallway, Norvall observed that the door to room 208 was wide open.
- Looking from the hallway, Norvall saw defendant Michael St. Clair Zabelle seated on a bed in a fetal position with his face on a dresser, appearing to be asleep.
- On the dresser, inches from Zabelle's head, Norvall saw a broken mirror with several dark balls on it, which his experience led him to believe were heroin.
- Norvall could not see Zabelle's hands from his position in the hallway.
- Believing Zabelle may have overdosed and concerned for his own safety due to the unseen hands, Norvall entered the room without announcing his presence to check on Zabelle's welfare.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Michael St. Clair Zabelle filed a motion to suppress evidence in the superior court (trial court).
- The superior court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following the denial, Zabelle pleaded no contest to a charge of possession of heroin for sale.
- Zabelle was sentenced to state prison.
- Zabelle appealed the superior court's denial of his suppression motion to the California Court of Appeal.
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 police officer's warrantless, unannounced entry into a hotel room violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer observes an occupant in an unusual position near suspected narcotics and cannot see the occupant's hands?
Opinions:
Majority - Sims, Acting P. J.
No. A police officer's warrantless, unannounced entry into a hotel room does not violate the Fourth Amendment under these circumstances. The court reasoned that two exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and announcement requirements were met. First, the knock-and-announce rule is excused when compliance would increase the peril to officers. Here, because the officer could not see the defendant's hands and did not know if he held a weapon, it was reasonable to enter without an announcement for safety reasons. Second, the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances. An experienced narcotics officer observing an individual in an unusual physical position just inches away from suspected heroin has an objective and reasonable basis to believe the person may have overdosed and requires immediate medical attention. Once lawfully inside under this emergency aid exception, the seizure of the heroin, which was in plain view, was also lawful.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the scope of the exigent circumstances and officer safety exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and knock-and-announce requirements. It clarifies that a suspected drug overdose, based on objective indicators, constitutes a medical emergency sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into a dwelling. The case also affirms that an officer's inability to see a suspect's hands can create a reasonable fear of peril, excusing the need to announce their presence before entry. This ruling provides law enforcement with clear authority to act in similar 'welfare check' scenarios involving visible narcotics and unresponsive individuals, balancing privacy rights against public safety and officer protection.
