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.