“Emergency Doctrine” Applied to Murder Investigation

07/10/12

On Friday, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department found that the continued questioning of a murder suspect by the police, despite his request for an attorney, did not violate his constitutional rights and was acceptable under “emergency doctrine.”

In the instant case, the police found the suspect Scott Doll, a former corrections officer, covered in blood and detained him without a lawyer while they searched for the victim. Doll claimed that he had been butchering deer, but the police did not believe him, and later they found a victim's body. The body belonged to Joseph Benaquist, Doll's friend and former co-worker, who was bludgeoned to death in the driveway of his home.

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Doll was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison for the murder. The appeals court affirmed the conviction and held that there had been no infringement of the constitution by the law enforcement when they apprehended Doll. Under the law of New York, police have the authority to question a suspect despite the request for an attorney, if the police believe an individual's life or safety may be at stake.

Writing for the majority in the 3-2 decision, Justice Nancy Smith observed, “The deputies did not know the name of the victim or victims, but they possessed enough information ... to justify the continued questioning of (Doll) despite his request for an attorney.”

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

However, Justice John Centra dissented and observed “To allow the police to disregard a person's invocation of the right to counsel based on the mere fact that the person has blood on his clothing is an unwarranted expansion of the emergency exception.” Joined by Justice Eugene Fahey, Justice Centra also observed that Doll's explanation that the blood on his clothes came from butchering a deer was “certainly reasonable” and that the emergency doctrine should not apply where doubts about the commission of a crime remain.

Doll's attorney, Timothy Murphy, said that Doll would appeal, as “no reported decision has permitted the application of the emergency doctrine to a scenario where there was no missing person report.”

However the majority agreed with the actions of the law enforcement and mentioned, “The observation of fresh blood stains on (Doll's) hands and clothing gave the deputy a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, which justified a more pointed inquiry into his activities.”

The case is the People v. Scott Doll, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, No. 411.