State v. Dube

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
655 A.2d 338, 1995 Me. LEXIS 32 (1995)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the community caretaking function, police may lawfully enter a residence to assist in an emergency and make plain view observations; however, their presence becomes an unconstitutional warrantless search if they remain on the premises after the underlying emergency has been resolved.

Facts:

The custodian of an apartment building needed to enter the defendant's unit to fix a sewage or water leak while the defendant was away.
The custodian requested police officers accompany him to verify he was only addressing the emergency.
Upon entering the apartment, the officers and custodian encountered an overwhelming smell of urine and feces, observing dirty diapers and animal/human waste tracked throughout the kitchen, stairs, and bedrooms.
The officers monitored the custodian from the landing as he repaired the toilet.
The custodian completed the repairs and left the apartment to wait on the sidewalk.
The officers remained inside the apartment after the custodian left and called for a camera.
Officers took photographs of the apartment's condition and showed Department of Human Services workers around the premises.
The defendant and his family returned home later that day.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child in the District Court.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by the officers.
The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea.
The defendant appealed the denial of the motion to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court reversed the District Court regarding evidence seized after the repairs were finished, but affirmed the denial regarding evidence seen before that point.
The defendant appealed the Superior Court's partial denial to the Supreme Judicial Court.

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 the Fourth Amendment permit police officers to remain in a private residence to photograph evidence of child neglect without a warrant after the plumbing emergency they originally entered to assist with has been fully resolved?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Wathen

No, the police officers were not permitted to remain in the apartment to gather evidence once the repairs were finished. The court reasoned that while the initial entry was lawful under the "community caretaking" function to assist with the plumbing emergency, the officers' observations were only admissible under the plain view doctrine while they were lawfully present. Once the repairs were completed, the justification for their presence ceased. The court rejected the State's argument that "exigent circumstances" justified the continued presence, noting that because the children were not home, there was no immediate threat to their safety requiring warrantless action. Therefore, evidence gathered after the repairs were finished, including the photographs, must be suppressed.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the temporal limitations of the "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement. While acknowledging that police play a legitimate role in assisting with public safety emergencies (like severe plumbing leaks), the court draws a hard line at the conclusion of that emergency. It prevents the police from using a lawful entry for a non-criminal purpose as a pretext to conduct a lingering, warrantless criminal investigation once the original reason for entry has evaporated. This decision reinforces the principle that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fit strictly within specific, time-bound exceptions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Dube (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"