Exigent Circumstances - Drugs:
Defendants were convicted of various drug related charges and they challenged the convictions. Defendants argued that the district court erred by admitting the out-of-court statements and acts of their alleged coconspirator. Defendants also argued that the district court erred by admitting evidence which was allegedly the fruit of an unlawful search. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions. The court held that the arresting officers knew that the parties in the motor home had been "cooking" chemicals which justified the officers' belief that the motor home had to be searched to avoid a possible explosion. The court found that the district court's finding of exigency was not clearly erroneous. Moreover, the court concluded that under the facts of the case the minimal intrusion occasioned by the use of the location beeper lawfully installed in a non-contraband item that was taken into a private residence was not a search. Thus, the court held that no warrant was required. United States v. Brock, 667 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982).
Expectation of Privacy of a Social Guest w/Exigent Circumstances:
Prior to defendant's arrest, federal drug agents observed him driving two companions to several locations where the companions bought materials used to manufacture methamphetamine. After watching the home for an hour, the federal agents detected the smell of cooking methamphetamine. Fearing an active lab was in the residence and could explode, the agents entered the home without a warrant. They found an active lab in the garage, immediately arrested the homeowner and defendant. Defendant asserted that the district court erred in finding that exigent circumstances justified the agents' entry of the residence. The appellate court held that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy as a social guest in the home. The court held that the government's evidence regarding the purchase and possession of materials used to manufacture methamphetamine, the strong odor of cooking methamphetamine emitting from the residence, and an agent's knowledge of the inherent dangerousness of an active lab, established that reasonable grounds existed for the agents to believe there was an immediate need to protect the public by entering the home and discontinuing the lab's production. United States v. Rhiger, 315 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2003).
The case names are links to the cases in Google Scholar which is a free source. Clicking on the case name will take you directly to the case in the current window or another option is right clicking and choosing to open in a new tab or window.
· United States v. Michael, 454 US 950 (1981)
· United States v. Bard, 667 F. 2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982)
· United States v. Bailey, 628 F. 2d 938 (6th Cir. 1980)
· United States v. Butts, 710 F. 2d 1139 (5th Cir. 1983)
· United States v. Higgins, 282 F. 3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2002)
· United States v. Thomas, 372 F. 3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2004)
· United States v. Wilson, 865 F. 2d 215 (9th Cir. 1989)
· United States v. Poe, 556 F. 3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2009)
