On January 21, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals
handed down an opinion in State of North
Carolina v. Audra Lindsey Smathers (COA13-496). The Court of Appeals formally recognized the “community
caretaking” doctrine. As explained
below, this doctrine, if used improperly by law enforcement, may provide a method
for some law enforcement to circumvent ‘probable cause’ and ‘reasonable
suspicion’ standards for stopping and searching a citizen.
The pertinent facts are as follows. Ms. Smathers was traveling in her automobile at
a safe speed. A police officer was traveling
behind her in his cruiser. The office
admits that Ms. Smathers had been driving safely and he suspected no criminal
activity. A dog ran into the road and Ms. Smathers’ automobile
struck the animal. Ms. Smathers slowed
her vehicle, and then continued on at a safe speed. The police officer feared that Ms. Smathers
may have been harmed in the collision and pulled her over to make sure she was safe.
Once stopped, the office suspected Ms. Smathers may be
intoxicated. The officer administered roadside
sobriety tests, which Ms. Smathers reportedly failed. The office charged Ms. Smathers with driving
while impaired.
As Americans, we are afforded certain constitutional protections. The Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit
unreasonable searches and seizure. This
right is protected by the doctrines of probable cause and reasonable suspicion,
i.e., a law enforcement officer must prove he has probable cause or reasonable
suspicion to carry out a search and/or seizure.
If the law enforcement did not have probably cause or reasonable suspicion,
any evidence obtained in the search and/or seizure would be suppressed.
Now, it would seem that the State may be able to make an
argument that it was acting under the “community caretaking” doctrine and that
evidence that was obtained in violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights
may now be admissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment