N.J. Supreme Court Addresses 'Community Caretaking' Exception to the Warrant Requirement

State v. Bogan(NJ Supreme Court)

Facts: A fourteen year old girl, Kathleen, was found alone and crying. She stated she had been molested earlier that day by a family friend, Anthony Bogan. The police were notified and Kathleen gave a description of Mr. Bogan. Kathleen proceeded with the police to the area where she had been molested. Kathleen identified the car she rode in with Mr. Bogan at the scene. The police rang the door bell and an adult voice responded. The officers identified themselves as the police and a twelve year old boy, Wally, answered the door. The police asked Wally if he was home alone. Wally claimed he was home alone, which was inconsistent with the adult voice that responded when the police rang the doorbell. The police walked with Wally up the steps to the landing of the second floor apartment. Wally acted timid and unsure when answering questions relating to the whereabouts of his mother. The police did not immediately enter the apartment. Wally answered a phone call which turned out to be his father. One police officer asked to speak with Wally’s father and Wally allowed him to do so. The officer entered the apartment to answer the phone while the other officers waited outside the door. The officer in the apartment noticed a man fitting Kathleen’s description in his plain view and instructed the officers to enter in and question the person. The person identified himself as ‘Anthony Green.’ The police officer on the phone with Wally’s father learned that Wally was staying with Anthony Bogan. Anthony Green indicated Anthony Bogan was his maiden name and he was read his Miranda rights. At headquarters, the police discovered Mr. Bogans had several warrants of for his arrest and read him his Miranda rights again.

Holding: The Court addressed the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement of the federal and state constitutions. The court stated that the police officers served as community caretakers by inquiring of a parent why a child was home alone on a school day in an apartment where a suspected crime had occurred. The court concluded an independent inquiry of the police concerning a child’s safety and welfare did not constitute an unlawful search. The court also held because the officer was lawfully on the premises when he observed the defendant in his plain view, he had a right to direct his fellow officers to question the defendant. As a result of this lawful chain of events, the statements made by the defendant after waiving his Miranda rights were admissible at trial.

Opinion: I believe the court made the correct decision in this case; however, the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution should be extremely limited. The facts of this case allow the exception to be invoked primarily due to the conduct of the police officers at the scene.
The criminal investigation and the child’s safety concerns were issues the police officers were dealing with concurrently. Even though the investigation led the police to the seemingly unattended child, this should not preclude the police from assuring that the child was being supervised. If the officers had entered the apartment initially or had dispersed and attempted to search the apartment the exception would not apply. In this case, the officer did not engage in any type of investigatory action relating to the criminal case. The officer merely requested to speak with the child’s father while the child was on the phone with him. In the officer’s plain view, he saw a man fitting the victim’s description of the perpetrator and acted objectively reasonably thereafter.

Thanks to law student Anthony D'Antonio for his summary.