Eaton v. State
2011 ND 35
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Huber was charged with manufacture and possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia after a warrantless entry into his apartment.
- Landlord, alerted by a complaint of a strong odor, sought to inspect the unit; Fire Department assisted due to suspected emergency.
- Responders noted an open window, extreme cold, and an ammonia/chemical odor emanating from Huber’s apartment.
- Landlord used a lease right of entry in an emergency to unlock the door; firefighters entered to identify the odor source.
- Inside, responders discovered a potential meth lab, propane cylinders, and a glass pipe; law enforcement entered and assisted, later obtaining a search warrant.
- Huber argued the entry was not justified by emergency/exigent circumstances; the district court denied suppression and admitted the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emergency exception justified warrantless entry | Huber; emergency required aid to residents and safety concerns | Huber; no true emergency justifying warrantless entry | Yes; emergency exception justified entry and seizure |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1999) (expands emergency doctrine requirements)
- City of Fargo v. Ternes, 522 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1994) (emergency doctrine allows warrantless entry)
- Matthews v. State, 665 N.W.2d 28 (N.D. 2003) (emergency exception not for general crime pursuit; focus on aid)
- Lubenow v. North Dakota State Highway Comm’r, 438 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 1989) (adopts emergency-exception test from Mitchell)
- Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1978) (limits post-emergency searches and emphasizes warrants for evidence)
- Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1984) (scope of emergency searches must be reasonably limited)
- United States v. Lloyd, 396 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (ongoing danger from meth labs justifies continued presence)
- United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (critical time for exigency is the moment of entry)
- Hoover v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2008 ND 87 (N.D. 2008) (consent and exigent circumstances are exceptions to warrant requirement)
- State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152 (N.D. 2010) ( Fourth Amendment protections apply to searches; warrants generally required)
- People v. Mitchel, 39 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. 1976) (odor may connect area to emergency)