The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Warrantless Police Search Upheld Under “Community Caretaker Function”

Posted on March 10, 2016 by Larry Bodine

TPadlocked Doorhe Wisconsin Supreme Court held a warrantless search of a house, including a locked room with marijuana, was lawful and reasonable under the state’s “community caretaker function.”

Kenosha, WI police officers were called to the scene of a medical emergency in 2012. The officers arrived and found a highly intoxicated, badly injured man, Antony Matalonis.

He stated a group of people severely beat and injured him, evidenced by a bloody face and right side of his body.

Blood Trail

Looking for more information, the officers followed a blood soaked snow trail that lead to the home of defendant Charles Matalonis.

The officers testified there was a very significant amount of blood on the screen door and it seemed like “things being shuffled around in the house. . . and [they] were concerned someone might be injured.”

The officers knocked on the front door and Matalonis answered, the officers then observed more blood on the floor and near a staircase inside the home.

Matalonis told the officers he lived alone. When the officers questioned him about the blood leading to his home he stated it was only him and his brother Antony fighting but his brother was not there anymore.

See Also: Feds Launch Broad Legal Attack on Health Benefits of Cannabidiol

The Search

Matalonis let the officers inside his home because they stated since there was blood they wanted to make sure no one else was injured inside.

The defendant was told to sit on his couch while the officers searched all areas of his home, including the basement. During one officers search he observed paraphernalia used for smoking marijuana.

An officer moved to other areas of the home where he came to a dead bolted door. The door has a small amount of blood on it. Matalonis stated the door was locked because he “kept his security equipment there.” The parties disputed how the officers obtained the key, but once the officer opened the door he found a marijuana plant growing.

There was only a brief discussion with Matalonis about the fight with his brother before  discovering the marijuana plant. Officers arrested Malalonis and subsequently tried to obtain a search warrant that was denied.

Evidence Admissible

The state court denied Matalonis’ motions to suppress evidence obtained during the search, on grounds that the officers were there to look for injured persons and only searched where blood was present.

Officers had to have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that a member fo the public was in need of assistance, the court said.  The appeals court concluded that based on the circumstances there was no mention of any other persons injured, and the mere possibility that another person may be injured was insufficient to meet the reasonable standard.

The state supreme court in explaining the community caretaker standard reiterated that the community caretaker was separate from other law enforcement duties.

An officer serving as a community caretaker to protect persons and property may be constitutionally permitted to perform warrantless searches and seizures.

The question was whether the officers conducted their search reasonably under the function. The court agreed they did because the public interest served by the entering the defendants home was substantial. The officers needed to ascertaining who the blood belonged to was an exigent circumstance.

The court further concluded that by the officers asking Matalonis for the key they were attempting to use less authority and force under the circumstances. As to the contents of the locked room, the officers did not have enough time to accept Matalonis’s responses at face value.

This case is the State of Wisconsin v. Matalonis, case no 2014AP108, Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Posted in Blog, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.