Emergency aid exception justified warrantless search

Where appellant was unresponsive and apparently suffering from a drug overdose in a motel room, heroin discovered when a responding police officer opened a closed nightstand drawer is admissible evidence.

Further, a statutory amendment that would have prevented appellant from being charged and convicted of possessing heroin does not apply retroactively.

Overview

A police officer was dispatched after an anonymous caller reported an unresponsive man lying on a motel room floor. The officer believed that the man, appellant McCarthy, was suffering from a drug overdose. He was unconscious, pale, sweating and his breathing was “agonal.”

Another officer arrived along with emergency medics. The medics treated appellant with Narcan. The two officers began searching for drugs in plain view. Appellant was not revived at that point. The search revealed nothing in plain view.

One of the officers then opened a closed nightstand drawer and discovered a baggie of what proved to be heroin. When appellant revived, he told the medics he had inhaled heroin.

Appellant was charged with possessing heroin. He moved to suppress the heroin found in the nightstand drawer. The trial court denied the motion after ruling that the community caretaker exception justified searching the closed drawer without a warrant.

Appellant argued in a pretrial motion that “Senate Bill 667 – later passed as an amendment to Code § 18.2-251.03 – precluded his prosecution because (1) another individual sought medical assistance for him in light of his overdose; (2) he remained at the scene and identified himself to law enforcement after their arrival; and (3) the evidence the prosecution sought to use at trial was obtained as a result of the anonymous tip reporting his overdose and requesting medical attention.”

The court noted that the offense occurred before the law had changed. The court conducted a bench trial and found appellant guilty.

Community caretaker

Regarding the search, the issue is whether an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies.

“The trial court ruled that the officers’ search was permissible under the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment’s typical warrant requirement.” But this year, the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled that the community caretaker exception does not extend to warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1598 (2021). …

“In this case, the search took place in a motel room rather than a home. But in all aspects relevant to this appeal, that is a distinction without a difference[.]” A motel room guest has the same Fourth Amendment rights as the rightful occupier of a house.

“Given that principle, and because Caniglia made clear that the community caretaker exception does not apply to warrantless searches of the home, this Court holds that the exception does not apply to motel rooms either.”

Emergency aid

The trial court reached the right result but for the wrong reason. The evidence is admissible under the emergency aid exception.

“In order for the emergency aid exception to apply, two conditions must be met. First, to justify entry into a residence, the police must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone in the residence needs immediate aid. …

“Second, the scope of any search conducted by the police once lawfully inside a residence must be ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’”

Appellant challenges only the scope of the motel room search. The police found him in a motel on the floor. Their experience led them to believe that he overdosed on drugs.

“So naturally, they began to look for clues to not only confirm that belief but also to determine what substance appellant had taken. To do so, they first conducted a cursory sweep of the motel room to see what they could find in plain view. …

“When that step shed no light on the cause of appellant’s condition – and appellant was, at that moment, not responding to Narcan treatment – the officers took a step further by searching the drawer of the nightstand in between the motel room’s beds. Extensive though that action may have been, this Court cannot say it was a step beyond what the circumstances before the officers reasonably required. …

“The premise underlying the emergency aid exception is the ‘commonsense rationale that preservation of human life is paramount to the right of privacy’ protected by the Fourth Amendment. …

“It would be an affront to that ‘commonsense rationale’ to hold that the Fourth Amendment required the officers to throw up their hands and call it quits once the initial cursory survey provided no clues as to appellant’s medical condition.”

No retroactivity

If the post-amendment version of Code § 18.2-251.03 applied at trial, it would have barred appellant’s prosecution. But the amendment did not take effect until after appellant’s offense, so “the only way appellant could have benefited from it is if it applied retroactively.”

Interpreting a law to apply retroactively “‘is not favored[.]’ … A legislative intent to make a statute retroactive is ‘manifest’ in one of two circumstances. The first is when the text of the statute contains ‘explicit terms’ demonstrating its retroactive effect. …The second is when the statute’s amended terms affect ‘remedial’ or ‘procedural’ rights rather than ‘substantive’ or ‘vested’ rights.”

The amended statute does not explicitly state it has retroactive effect. Further, where “a statutory amendment effects a change in both substance and remedy (or procedure), courts will not give the statute retroactive effect. …

“Code § 18.2-251.03’s amendments plainly affected substantive rights because they changed the class of persons and range of conduct that is punishable under law.

“At the time appellant suffered his overdose, the law then in effect made clear that appellant’s conduct was a crime because he did not personally seek medical assistance during the overdose. …

“But after the fact, the General Assembly amended Code § 18.2-251.03 to provide that what appellant did before was no longer considered a crime under Code § 18.2-25012; the amendment now not only protects overdose victims who seek self-help in overdose situations, it also protects overdose victims who had help sought for them by other persons.”

The court correctly denied the motion to suppress and properly refused to apply the amended statute retroactively.

Affirmed.

McCarthy v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1225-20-1, Nov. 9, 2021. (CAV) Huff. From the Chesapeake City Circuit Court (Smith, Arrington). Erik A. Mussoni for appellant; Leanna C. Minix for appellee. VLW 021-7-154, 18 pp. Published.