The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 26, 964 N.E.2d 1037. In concluding that the community caretaking exception did not supply a valid basis for Trooper Byers's stop of Moiduddin's vehicle, the trial court found that the "totality of the circumstances * * * d[id] not suggest that there was an immediate need for assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury."

The court has also characterized situations befitting the emergency-aid exception as placing "life or limb * * * in jeopardy." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 21. We therefore understand the emergency-aid exception to excuse the warrant requirement in circumstances where the time it takes to obtain a warrant may place a person's life in danger.

State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus.

Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. at 403, 405-406, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), quoting Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). Accord , State v. Dunn , 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. {¶22} In Ohio, the Supreme Court has held,

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403, 405-406, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978). Accord, State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. {¶33} In Ohio, the Supreme Court has held,

{¶ 8} At the suppression hearing, the State argued that the warrantless entry of Mr. Linder's house fell within the exigent circumstances exception, other times known as the community-caretaking exception. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 15. In Dunn, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the exception exists because "police officers are duty-bound to provide emergency services to those who are in danger of physical harm[.

The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. In Dunn, the Ohio Supreme Court cited ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 1–2.2 for the proposition that "police officers are duty-bound to provide emergency services to those who are in danger of physical harm."

{¶14} Warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional, but several exceptions to the warrant requirement have been delineated by the courts, including the one pertinent to this case, the "community-caretaking exception," which courts sometimes refer to as the "emergency-aid exception" or "exigent-circumstance exception." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 15. The exception is based on a recognition that

The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. Test as Applied to this Case

Another exception is the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception which "allows police officers to stop a person to render aid if they reasonably believe that there is an immediate need for their assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St. 3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 22.