It is not uncommon at a motion to suppress hearing based on an unlawful seizure of a citizen to hear the police officer state that he or she “was just checking on the [defendant.]” That is, the officer will suggest, that they stopped the defendant—not because they had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing a criminal offense (the standard for stopping people)—but because they wanted to “check on” the defendant (definitely NOT the standard.) And, the cop just happened to find that the defendant was drunk/had pot on him/was carrying burglary tools/etc. while “checking on” the defendant.
The “community caretaking function” is the idea that law enforcement are, in part, there to aid citizens in need of help, and therefore “may stop and assist an individual whom a reasonable person…would believe is in need of help.” (Corbin v. State, 85 S.W3d 272, 276 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Nothing wrong with this; I, personally, want a cop to stop and “check on me” if I am standing beside my car, and the engine is billowing smoke and I am stranded in the middle of nowhere waving my arms at a passing police car.
But…the kicker comes in the next part: “the community caretaking function is totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to a violation of a criminal statute.” (Id.) The problem is, though, that the overwhelming majority of real-life instances where the police officer argues that he stopped an individual under the community caretaking function are clearly attempts to detect, investigate, or acquire evidence relating to a criminal offense. This is totally contravening the purpose of the community caretaking function. That is, our (mine and yours) Fourth Amendment rights are being abrogated under the auspices of the “community caretaking” function.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution provide that a person shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures without a warrant are default “unreasonable” and require the State to prove one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. But “even without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an offense has occurred, a police officer may reasonably (legally) seize an individual through the exercise of his community caretaking function.” Corbin, 85 S.W.3d. That is to say, the community caretaking function is an exception to the rule articulated in our Federal and State Constitutions.
Let that sink in: we value freedom from unreasonable intrusion by the State (i.e. the police) so much, that both our state and federal constitutions prohibited unreasonable intrusions without the police having a damn good reason to intrude.
And, without a doubt, a police officer stopping a driver who is swerving all over the road because the driver appears to be convulsing is a “damn good reason.” But…just “checking on” a man parked in a hospital lot; a man walking from behind a closed bar; a man whose car the officer does not recognize parked in a residential neighborhood; the driver of a car that swerves for approximately 20 feet over the divider line and then drives perfectly; and such are NOT good reasons. (And yes, all of these are actual cases on the community caretaking function—these are the uses the community caretaking function is being put to by police.)
Not good enough. No good enough, anyway, for forgo our rights under the Fourth Amendment, and under Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution.