State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 24. In the case at bar, we conclude that appellant had not been placed in custody when he made these statements.

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.

The emergency-aid exception allows law enforcement officers to make a warrantless entry into a home or curtilage to render aid if they reasonably believe there is the immediate need for assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 20-22. The emergency aid exception applies where there is an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the subject is in need of immediate aid.

State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 26. "Community caretaking functions are 'divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.'"

Consensual searches are not considered to be traffic stops and do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 17; see also, State v. Hlinovsky, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 09 BE 19, 2011-Ohio-6421. This type of exception to the Fourth Amendment

{¶29} Another is 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. "[Warrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless 'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

'Numerous state and federal cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid.'" State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 18, quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). "The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency." Id., quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963).

) State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 17, citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985).

State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 15. "The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency."

{¶32} A well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is where exigent circumstances or an emergency exists, which is sometimes also referred to as the "emergency-aid exception" or the "community-caretaking exception." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 15. A warrantless police entry into a private residence is not unlawful if made upon exigent circumstances.