Pubdate: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 Source: Associated Press Copyright: 1999 Associated Press Author: Bob Egelko, Associated Press Writer COURT ALLOWS POLICE SEARCH BUT CAN'T DECIDE REASON SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Police who find the door of a house open and see clutter inside can enter and seize any contraband they find in plain sight, the state Supreme Court said Thursday in a ruling that failed to pinpoint the reason. Six justices agreed that the officers didn't need a search warrant, but only three voted to recognize a new legal rationale for a home search: "community caretaking," a security check to "find out what is going on" when there are signs of a possible break-in but no apparent emergency. "That is what law-abiding, taxpaying citizens desire and expect of their local constabulary," said Justice Janice Rogers Brown, writing for the three. Three other justices said the open door and suspicion of a burglary created an emergency that justified a police entry. Without a majority for either view, the ruling left the law where it was: Officers can enter without a warrant only in an emergency when quick action is needed to protect life or property. The defense lawyer in the Contra Costa County case before the court was disappointed at his loss but relieved the court hadn't gone further. The "community caretaking" rule proposed by three justices "invites Big Brother into our homes without any standards for the police to know when they can and can't enter," said Ted Cassman, lawyer for defendant Andre L. Ray. Deputy Attorney General Juliet Haley, the state's lawyer, was unavailable for comment. Police in Richmond were called to the home on Christmas Day 1996 by a neighbor, who said the door had been open all day and it was a shambles inside. Arriving officers saw the door about two feet open and could see clothing and paper strewn on the floor, as if the house had been ransacked. After getting no response from inside, they entered, searched the rooms and found a large amount of cash and over 20 pounds of suspected cocaine in plain view, the court said. Ray, who has not come to trial, challenged evidence found in the search. Superior Court Judge Garrett Grant ruled the search illegal, saying no apparent emergency existed that required immediate entry without a warrant. A state appeals court and the state's high court disagreed, for different reasons. Brown, joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Marvin Baxter, said no emergency is needed when police see signs of trouble and enter to see if someone needs help. The scene at the house "justifiably aroused concern for the welfare of persons inside and the possibility of a burglary in progress," Brown said. She said the circumstances "warranted further inquiry to resolve the possibility someone inside needed assistance or property needed protection." Chief Justice Ronald George, joined by Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Ming Chin, cited the same circumstances to find an emergency: Police believed a burglary was in progress or had taken place and someone might need immediate help. But dissenting Justice Stanley Mosk noted that Judge Grant had found no emergency. Mosk disagreed with Brown's rationale for a non-emergency search, saying it was based on "the paternalistic premise that `We're from the government and we're here to help you."' The case is People vs. Ray, S071999. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D