{"id":223847,"date":"2026-09-14T07:38:52","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T14:38:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/enter-home-get-clothes-child-protective-custody\/"},"modified":"2026-09-20T01:27:22","modified_gmt":"2026-09-20T08:27:22","slug":"enter-home-get-clothes-child-protective-custody","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=223847","title":{"rendered":"Can Police Re-Enter a Home to Get Clothes for a Child in Protective Custody?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anthony Bandiero<\/a><\/strong>
\nAttorney and Senior Legal Instructor, Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training<\/p>\n

An officer wrote in with a call where both parents were arrested for public intoxication and an 8-year-old was left in the front yard in nothing but shorts. The kid went into protective custody. Then the administrators told the officers to go back to the house and get him some clothes.<\/em><\/p>\n

Hello everyone. It’s Anthony Bandiero here, attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, bringing you another roadside chat. The question is, can we enter a home to grab clothes for people in our custody?<\/p>\n

The officer said, “Look, we had a situation where both parents were arrested for public intoxication. And they also had an 8-year-old kid just in shorts in the front yard playing, unsupervised. Drunk parents. Also, some aggressive dogs were present in the yard, so the kid was not safe.”<\/p>\n

The officers tried to find a guardian to take custody of the kid, but they couldn’t do it. Nobody’s around and so forth. So they took the kid into protective custody, brought the kid back to the police station, and look, now the kid only has shorts on. The administrators are like, “Look, we need some clothes for this kid. He’s going to be in our custody probably for several hours. We need some clothes and so forth. Go back to the house and go in there and go get some clothes for the kid.”<\/p>\n

Now the question is, and there’s nobody left inside the house, the cops are not in the home. If they were still in the home, it would make this case a little easier, because there would not be a re-entry.<\/p>\n

What is the ground rule for any entry into a home?<\/h2>\n

So generally speaking, can we do this? Let’s do some ground rules. First of all, every entry into a home must be articulated and reasoned. And the reason why is because the warrantless entry into a domicile is the chief evil which the Fourth Amendment is trying to prevent. Just make sure that this is legit. That the government, the king, in the old days, did not just walk into your home without your consent, some kind of recognized exception, or a warrant.<\/p>\n

Why are there so few cases on entering a home to get clothes?<\/h2>\n

Well, there’s not a lot of cases, quite frankly, on this issue. And here’s probably why.<\/p>\n

First of all, it almost likely never results in any evidence being found. So think about this. You arrest somebody in a bathing suit. Let’s say it’s a female in a two-piece bathing suit, and you’re going to bring her to jail, and in the booking room there’s going to be males and females in the same room. It’s just going to cause an issue, that you have this female in a bathing suit. And you go in there and you grab a coat for her or whatever clothing, and you assist her to change out before you go to jail.<\/p>\n

Well, a lot of times, A, they’re probably thankful for that. And B, when you reenter the home to get those clothes, you likely did not see anything in plain view<\/a>. Which would cause another case, which would then spark the whole debate of, you entered my home without any recognized exception.<\/p>\n

But what happens when we do go into these homes because we believe that the arrestee needs clothes, shoes, and so forth, or a jacket, and we do find plain view evidence? That’s where you’re going to start seeing a few cases talk about this issue.<\/p>\n

Is there a case on entering a home to get clothes for an arrestee?<\/h2>\n

Now, I could not find a case specifically on going into a home to find juvenile clothing. But I certainly found a case or cases when it comes to adults and arrestees. And juveniles as far as in our care and custody, for protection, protective custody. But I definitely found some cases where the court has upheld entry to go grab clothing for an arrestee.<\/p>\n

One of the best cases that I found so far is United States v. Gwinn, Fourth Circuit, 2000.<\/p>\n

Now, Gwinn was arrested in a remote area in West Virginia during the evening hours in early May. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing only blue jeans, no shirt, no shoes. Sounds like he’s going to a wedding.<\/p>\n

The interest served by requiring him to put on shoes and a shirt was more than the desire of law enforcement to complete the arrestee’s wardrobe. That’s what he’s saying, your honor. They’re not my parents, they don’t pick up my clothes for me. It’s a little bit more than that. It’s not that we really care about what they’re wearing to jail. It’s that there’s a safety issue for him.<\/p>\n

It was the trooper’s duty to look after the reasonable safety requirements of the persons in their custody. Wherever Gwinn might walk while in these troopers’ custody, he would face the substantial hazards of sustaining cuts and other injuries to his feet, as well as the increasing chill during the evening hours in early May. We do not believe that the government is required to present specific evidence of every nail, piece of glass, stone, or other hazard to be present, or to present a specific weather forecast, to justify its concern for Gwinn’s safety and well-being.<\/p>\n

Why is this such a hard call for the officer?<\/h2>\n

So I’ve got to tell you, I mean, man, it’s cases like this that quite frankly make my heart go out to you. What a tough job that you have, that we are potentially going to litigate just trying to get this kid some clothes. You know what I mean? Your heart is in the right place. You’re not trying to look for evidence on this. This is not a pretext. This is not a “go get some different shoes for the kid, I don’t like the way these look.” This is just you trying to do good out there, and potentially it could result in a lawsuit.<\/p>\n

So I feel for you. If we’re in the weeds on a decision like this, what about the much harder cases where you have to use force and so forth?<\/p>\n

So can you go get the clothes?<\/h2>\n

So here’s my answer.<\/p>\n

Number one, there is no constitutional requirement that you have to reach into your pocket and go to Walmart and buy this kid clothes.<\/p>\n

Number two, can you articulate a reason to put clothes on this kid? I know he may be in the office and there’s carpet and so forth, but is it really humane in a sense to have this 8-year-old kid who’s already gone through so much? His parents are arrested for being drunks. He’s out there by himself. He’s in this foreign place called a police station. I know the men and women are being nice to him or her. But he has no clothes on. He has just shorts. Does he feel comfortable? Do you think that this would make him more comfortable and more safe mentally as well as physically to have some damn clothes on, and maybe also grab some of his belongings, some toys or so forth?<\/p>\n

The answer is yes.<\/p>\n

You’re going to pull out some heartstrings with a case like this. The judges are going to be like, come on. You’re basically playing the role of a parent at this point and you have to take care of the kid.<\/p>\n

So I believe that because of the good motive that you have, because of the mental issues as well as dressing a kid and having clothes when he’s around a bunch of strangers, is going to cause most judges to uphold this as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And yes, it is going to be a form of exigency<\/a> as described in Gwinn and a lot of other cases that Gwinn refers to.<\/p>\n

At the same time, change the facts, change the answer.<\/p>\n

But there are, when it comes to these re-entry cases, plenty of court cases out there that have upheld a re-entry into a home for a justified need. A lot of them are because evidence might be destroyed and so forth, but here I think we’re going to be okay.<\/p>\n

That’s my advice. But is it a slam dunk either way? Absolutely not. Is it a good debate? 100%. For those people who thought that this was a no go, I get it, too. I absolutely get this is not black and white. However, it’s a tough job and you do have to make decisions, and I think that this will be in the best interest of the child. And the courts would uphold it.<\/p>\n

The short version<\/h2>\n