|
I'm surprised this ruling was in favor of the entry. Wisconsin courts have held that entry into a residence based solely on a report of intoxicated driving is a 4th amendment violation. The only way the warrantless entry in the California case would have been justified here would have been under the Community Caretaker function. That means there must be a concern for the welfare of the driver or someone else and the basis for entry must be only for the intent to check their welfare. The mere fact that they were apparently intoxicated is not reason enough by itself. Add to the possible intoxication fresh vehicle damage & blood in or on the vehicle and they can get away with the entry.
I would be surprised if the California law stood up in a supreme court ruling.
__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin
|