The court reverses defendant's driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction because it was based on evidence obtained by a police officer following his unlawful entry into defendant's garage. The court remands for the Law Division judge to determine whether defendant's careless driving conviction can be sustained based on information learned before the officer unlawfully crossed the threshold of defendant's home.
The court addresses the circumstances in which a police officer may enter a suspect's residence in connection with a drunk or careless driving investigation. The court holds that while police have the authority to perform various "community caretaking" functions—such as determining whether a suspected drunk driver needs medical attention—they may not make a warrantless entry into a suspect's home to execute an investigative detention without consent or exigent circumstances. The court holds this rule applies to defendant's garage.
The court also holds this was not a fleeting or de minimus entry. The officer entered the garage to execute an investigative detention, that is, to seize defendant. The court stresses that even the brief entry of the home to effectuate the seizure of a resident is a significant constitutional intrusion. The court ultimately concludes the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the officer lawfully entered the garage to render emergency aid under the exigent circumstances exception.