We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Exigent Circumstances – Part Two

There are occasions when officers are faced with circumstances that do not seem obviously criminal but rather involve helping the community, commonly known as the community caretaker function of law enforcement. This situation, such as the 911 hang up, the welfare check, the open door to the house or a wandering child in the neighborhood, may potentially lead officers to enter dwellings without a warrant or other recognized exception to the warrant requirement. It is important for officers to understand the “community caretaker” exception.

“Community Caretaker Exception”

Most courts recognize an exception to the warrant requirement and have termed it the community caretaker exception. This area of the law recognizes that officers are called by the public for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with investigating or stopping criminal activity. Courts recognize that if there were restrictions as to what actions officers can perform in these circumstances there would be severe adverse consequences to citizens who need help. So in essence, the courts have recognized the community caretaker function as a form of exigent circumstances. Officers need to be aware that because the community caretaker situation usually does not involve the degree of danger as traditional exigent circumstances, any criminal activity detected and evidence gathered will only be upheld when officers use the least intrusive measures in the field.

Community Caretaker Searches

As a general statement, the community caretaker exception will not support a full blown search of a residence. Often, officers will be called out for a welfare check with an open front door. For officer safety and to check the safety of the residents, a protective sweep may be in order. Courts may recognize the validity of such an entry. When evaluating whether to uphold such an entry and the potential discovery of evidence courts have looked at the following circumstances:

• Whether the officers were motivated by the desire to assist a citizen and not obtain evidence of a crime:

• Because these situations are not “truly” exigent, did the officers take time to evaluate the circumstances prior to making entry to a residence and did they explore other alternatives besides entry first.

Document what you knew at the time of the entry and the reason for the entry to protect yourself and any evidence that may be found inside. Do not do a full blown search under these scenarios. If items of evidence or evidence of criminal activity is discovered your best course of action is to freeze the residence and obtain a search warrant.


  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau