to this requirement, including the community care-taking exception.” (internal footnote and citations omitted)); Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, ty caretaking’ doctrine is analytically distinct from consensual encounters and is invoked to validate a search or seizure as reasonable under the fourth amendment.”); State v. Crawford, 659 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Iowa 2003) (“Implicit in any community caretak-ing case is the fact that there has been a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Otherwise there would be no need to apply a community caretaking exception.”); In Re J.M.E., 38 Kan.App.2d 229, 162 P.3d 835, 839 (.2007) (describing the community caretaking doctrine as an “exception” to the Fourth Amendment); Poe v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 54, 56-59 (Ky.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. State, 409 Md. 415, 975 A.2d 877,
recognizing the community caretaking exception but holding it inapplicable to justify the police action at issue recognizing that the community caretaking function as an exception and enunciating a test for its application recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement recognizing that police perform a community caretaking function separate and apart from the enforcement of criminal statutes holding that section 63092 coexists with the traditional community caretaking functions of the police