In Commonwealth v. Fisher, the Court of Appeals ruled that the police had not exceeded the proper scope of their community caretaking function, and reversed the order suppressing drugs seized from the defendant. The facts are that police responded to a report that a person in a parked car (the defendant) appeared to be in distress due to a seizure or a drug overdose. The police approached the defendant and asked him “if he had consumed any drugs or alcohol that evening and if he needed medical attention. He answered both questions in the negative, but his speech was slurred, his eyes were half-closed, and he was nodding his head up and down. There was no odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the defendant or his vehicle.” From outside the vehicle, one of the officers could see a baggie sticking out of the pocket of the defendant’s pants, and it appeared to contain a white powder. A search of the defendant revealed it was crack cocaine. The police then completed an inventory search, and found more contraband. In ruling that the police did not exceed their community caretaking authority and, therefore, that suppression was not appropriate, the Court stated, “In performing a community caretaking function, a police officer’s decision to detain a motorist for a brief period of time or to take other reasonable steps that intrude on a motorist’s liberty in an effort to confirm whether emergency medical assistance is required or to determine the nature of the individual’s apparent illness or impairment is not invalid because the acts taken by the officer also serve to uncover evidence of criminal activity. Considering the totality of the factual circumstances — a driver who exhibited signs of impairment, but who was not presenting with the constellation of symptoms commonly associated with alcohol intoxication, and the presence of a plastic baggie sticking out of his pants containing what appeared to be a white powder — it was reasonable for the police officers to suspect that the defendant was in possession of narcotic drugs. In such circumstances, an exit order was allowed because it was proportional to the suspicion that arose once the plastic baggie was observed….. The police had a right to avoid the potential danger to themselves and to the public, as well as to the defendant himself, if he had attempted to drive away.”
