US v. Gerry, Crim. No. 87-00051 P.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 87-00051 P. |
| Citation | 666 F. Supp. 275 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Forrest N. GERRY, Jr. a/k/a Harvey Bugbee, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Paula D. Silsby, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Me., for plaintiff.
George F. Wood, Sanford, Me., for defendant.
This case is before the Court on Defendant Forrest N. Gerry, Jr.'s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant search of his home. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied.
After having conducted an evidentiary hearing, the Court finds the pertinent facts to be as follows. Since at least the beginning of 1987, Special Agent Wayne Steadman of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was involved in an investigation of methamphetamine manufacture in Maine and was searching for the laboratory in Maine where the manufacture was taking place. On April 14, 1987, the FBI advised Steadman that it had received an arrest warrant for Forrest N. Gerry, Jr., on a complaint for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073. Gerry was wanted in New Jersey on a charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. The FBI further advised Steadman that Gerry was residing in a house on Route 126 in Pittston, Maine and using the name Harvey Bugbee.
Steadman learned from Chief Gordon Glidden of the Gardiner, Maine police department that a man using the name Harvey Bugbee and living at the house in question was associating with one Richard Ayer, whom the DEA and state authorities had reasonable grounds to believe was involved in methamphetamine manufacture in Maine. Glidden identified a photograph of Gerry as the man known to him as Harvey Bugbee. Glidden told Steadman that Bugbee drove a brown Lincoln, was from Philadelphia, reportedly was on the run from authorities, and reportedly was involved with some younger persons and a drug known as "crack." Steadman thought the reference was more likely to "crank," a street name for methamphetamine.
Steadman shared this information with the other state and federal officers who would make up the arrest party. None of the officers had any specific information suggesting that Gerry or any of his associates were armed or had ever engaged in or threatened violence. The officers were aware, however, that methamphetamine manufacture involves chemicals that are highly volatile, inflammable, and/or toxic.
The arrest party proceeded to the house on Route 126. As the officers arrived, they noticed two cars in the driveway, neither of which was a brown Lincoln. They also noticed that the basement windows were painted black and that there were numerous lights on on the first floor. An individual named Dill came out of the house, was questioned briefly, and was allowed to leave in one of the vehicles. The remaining vehicle was known to the officers to be the one usually driven by Richard Ayer.
Two officers proceeded to the vestibule of the house, where they arrested Gerry. Other officers entered the house to perform a "protective sweep," i.e., to search for other persons who might threaten the safety of the officers or destroy evidence on the premises and to check for the presence of immediately dangerous chemicals. In the course of this sweep, officers discovered what appeared to be a laboratory in the basement. Immediately thereafter, determining that no one else was in the house, the officers departed.
Subsequently, Agent Steadman applied for a federal warrant to search Gerry's house; Steadman's affidavit included information about the suspected laboratory observed in the basement. The magistrate issued the warrant and, in the course of executing it, officers seized laboratory equipment, chemicals, and approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine. Gerry now moves to suppress these items. He argues that the "protective sweep" was an illegal search, that the information about the laboratory in the basement must therefore be excised from the affidavit in support of the warrant application, and that without that information the magistrate lacked probable cause to issue the warrant.
The First Circuit has held that the imminent destruction, removal, or concealment of evidence is one type of exigent circumstance that would justify officers in making a warrantless entry into a dwelling. United States v. Palumbo, 742 F.2d 656, 658-59 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1114, 105 S.Ct. 799, 83 L.Ed.2d 792 (1985). Where it is known that no one is on the premises, the premises may be secured merely by guarding the entrances, but in other circumstances officers may conduct "`a very quick and limited pass through the premises to check for third persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Gerry, 87-1944
...The district court denied Gerry's motion, holding that exigent circumstances justified the sweep through the trailer. United States v. Gerry, 666 F.Supp. 275 (D.Me.1987). The court found that, considering all of the circumstances, the officers conducting the arrest had "reason to believe th......
-
Gerry v. US, Civ. No. 91-0118-P.
...Court denied Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence which was seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant. See United States v. Gerry, 666 F.Supp. 275 (D.Me.1987). A jury trial commenced on August 18, 1987. After one day of trial, Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea, pursua......