Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Whether the police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he seized & eventually searched defendant after opening his car door without warning in the absence of any exigency; The “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement; Cady v Dombrowski; “Less intrusive” alternatives

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement did not apply where a police officer opened defendant-Morgan’s car door without warning without first trying less intrusive means to address any concerns the officer may have had about Morgan’s condition. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s denial of Morgan’s motion to suppress and vacated his convictions and sentences. The police found him seemingly passed out at the wheel with the motor running. “Without knocking on the car door, shining a flashlight into the car, or otherwise trying to arouse Morgan, the officer opened the car door and asked Morgan whether everything was okay. Morgan was groggy,” and an altercation took place when the officer asked for identification. Morgan was arrested, the vehicle was searched, and a firearm and drugs were found. He moved to have the firearm and drug evidence suppressed, but the district court denied the motion under the community caretaking exception. Morgan conditionally pled guilty to possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. He argued on appeal that his motion to suppress was improperly denied. The court held that the community caretaking exception did not apply under the circumstances. Even though the officer reasonably believed that “something was amiss,” and that a possibly intoxicated driver could be a danger to others on the road, the court held that he should have used available “less intrusive paths” to address his concerns. He could have tried “turning on the police car’s emergency lights; shining a flashlight into Morgan’s face; calling out to Morgan; or knocking on the window. In this caretaking setting, as in all of them, the intrusion must reasonably match the problem at hand.” The court rejected the officer’s argument that “he needed to open the car door suddenly because a startled and passed-out person might ‘hit the gas[,]’” where there was no empirical data or other evidence to support this supposition. Remanded.