B.2(m). Emergency Action

The government may act without a Warrant only briefly and only to prevent serious harm to another’s rights;

In some ways, this is a continuation of Section B.2(l). This explains the very limited scope in which the government, primarily law enforcement, can act without a warrant to stop an immediate threat to other people. Critics of the limits on search and seizure will likely argue that those limits unreasonably tie the government’s hands in emergencies. This is the answer to that argument. Government actors can intervene in real emergencies without a warrant, but they can only do so for as long as necessary to prevent serious harm to another person’s rights.

actions must be strictly limited and promptly reviewed by a court within seventy-two (72) hours.

This language clarifies that any warrantless action must be limited. It is also subject to mandatory review within seventy-two hours. Officials can’t just declare a threat to another’s rights and swoop in, acting broadly and with impunity. They have to restrict their actions, and those actions will be reviewed for legality within three days.

Officials acting in good faith within Charter-consistent training are not automatically liable even if a court later finds the action unlawful.

Critics will again argue that officers will be paralyzed, afraid to act, since every action is reviewable. This wording provides them with protection, as long as they are acting 1) in good faith and 2) within the training they are required to receive under Article I, Section 1.B.

So, to put together an example, let’s assume that police have credible evidence that a particular bus, which is filled with passengers, has a bomb that will go off in one hour. The exact location and nature of the bomb is unknown, but it is reasonable to assume it may be carried on one’s person. Police could, without waiting for a warrant (which would not arrive in time), stop the bus, search it, and every person on it. Within three days, their actions would be reviewed. As long as they didn’t commit some other violation of rights in the process of their search, the search itself would be protected. Let’s further assume, for this example, that one of the bus riders was walking in a manner that suggested something might be concealed in their anatomy. Officers could probably even conduct a strip search under these circumstances. If it were later discovered that the passenger had a medical issue, they would not be able to hold the officers liable because they had acted in good faith and within the training provided to them. On the other hand, if officers subjected every passenger on the bus to that same invasive search, without trying other means first, those passengers might have a claim of civil rights violations, because that would almost certainly exceed the bounds of their training.