USA. v. Ojeda

• Decision Date: 03 January 2002
• Docket Number: PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,No. 01-10020,01-10020
• Parties: (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,, v. STEVEN PETER OJEDA,
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 486

276 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 2002)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEVEN PETER OJEDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 01-10020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2001

Filed January 3, 2002

Barbara J. Valliere, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Nina Willder, Weinberg & Wilder, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CR-99-40060-CW

Before: Paul H. Roney,^* Procter Hug, Jr. and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam

In this criminal prosecution for drugs, the government appeals the suppression of evidence of a methamphetamine laboratory seized from a warrantless search of a garage on residential property. We hold that the search was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement and REVERSE.

The police believed that methamphetamine production was occurring at defendant-appellee Steven Peter Ojeda's residential property. The police obtained a search warrant describing the area to be searched as

the premises located and described as 2417 Merritt Ave., San Pablo, Contra Costa County, CA, further described as a single story, single family residence, with blue wood exterior, white trim, and a composition roof. The numbers 2417 are attached to the mailbox in front of the residence.

It was held by the district court and conceded by the government that this warrant did not include the garage immediately behind and about five feet from the residential structure. That is the place where this search took place.

When the police were in that area in the course of executing the search of the residence, defendant Ojeda emerged from the garage. The garage door immediately slammed shut and was locked from the inside. The officers smelled the odor of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, which the officers knew to be combustible. The officers then entered the garage and discovered the methamphetamine laboratory.

Because the police had no warrant to search the garage, the search is per se illegal unless it falls within an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). One exception is the presence of exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry, search, or seizure when"police officers, acting on probable cause and in good faith, reasonably believe from the totality of the circumstances that (a) evidence or contraband will imminently be destroyed or (b) the nature of the crime or character of the suspect(s) pose a risk of danger to the arresting officers or third persons." United States v. Kunkler, 679 F.2d 187, 191-192 (9th Cir. 1982) (footnote omitted). The government bears the burden of showing specific and articulable facts to justify the finding of exigent circumstances. LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Shephard, 21 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 1985))).

The district court found these facts demonstrated exigent circumstances that would normally justify an immediate warrantless search of the garage:

After the officers arrived on the scene, they saw Ojeda exit the rear building and heard the door being locked behind Ojeda from inside. The officers could smell a strong odor, associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine, coming from that unit. Thus, the officers had reason to believe that there were additional suspects inside the rear building and that methamphetamine manufacturing was occurring there. In addition, they had reason to believe that the suspects might try to escape or to destroy evidence, such as the glass laboratory equipment or the finished product.

The district court then decided, however, that the exception was not applicable because it thought that the exigency was created by the police. Exigent circumstances created by improper conduct by the police may not be used to justify a warrantless search. United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 1985). The district court held:

However, as Agent Hudson testified, the exigent circumstances in this case were created by the combination of the operation of the methamphetamine laboratory and the...