State v. Menz
880 P.2d 48, 75 Wash. App. 351 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement permits a warrantless entry into a residence when police are responding to a report of domestic violence and observe corroborating, abnormal circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe someone inside needs immediate assistance.
Facts:
- On January 23, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., an anonymous caller reported an active domestic violence incident at 2639 Sumner, the residence of Dale Menz.
- The caller believed the participants were named Debbie and Dale and that a child lived there.
- When three police officers arrived, they found the front door of the residence open by five or six inches on a winter night.
- The household lights were on, and the officers could hear a television playing inside.
- No vehicles were present in the driveway.
- The officers knocked and announced their presence two or three times but received no response from within the home.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Dale Menz with manufacturing marijuana.
- Menz filed a motion in the trial court to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing the warrantless search of his home was illegal.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the officers' entry was justified to search for injured people.
- Following the trial court's ruling, Menz was found guilty.
- Menz (appellant) appealed his conviction to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement permit police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant when they are responding to an anonymous tip of domestic violence and find corroborating circumstances, such as an open front door in winter, lights and a television on, but receive no response from anyone inside?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, C. J.
Yes. The emergency aid exception permits the warrantless entry because the officers reasonably believed someone inside was in distress and needed assistance. The court applied a three-part test for the emergency exception: (1) the officer subjectively believed someone needed assistance for health or safety reasons; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe there was a need for assistance; and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place searched. Here, the officers testified to their subjective belief, satisfying the first prong. The second and third prongs were met because the anonymous tip of domestic violence was corroborated by abnormal circumstances—an open front door on a winter night, with lights and a TV on, but no answer to the officers' knocking. This combination of facts created a reasonable belief that someone inside was injured or otherwise unable to respond, justifying the warrantless entry under the police's community caretaking function.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the emergency aid exception, establishing that an uncorroborated anonymous tip alone is insufficient to justify a warrantless entry. However, when such a tip is combined with independently observable and 'abnormal' circumstances at the scene, it can provide the necessary corroboration to form a reasonable belief that an emergency exists. The case sets a precedent for how to balance the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches with the police's duty to render aid in domestic violence situations. Future cases will look to the specific combination of the tip and on-scene facts to determine if a warrantless entry was justified.
