State v. Huber, 793 N.W.2d 781

Huber was charged with manufacture and possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia after a warrantless search of his apartment.
A landlord, responding to a reported ammonia odor, sought entry to identify the odor’s source and called firefighters and police.
Firefighters entered the apartment with the landlord’s assistance to locate the odor’s source and found a meth lab setup and a person in the back room.
Law enforcement questioned Huber; he was read Miranda rights, admitted presence of meth lab components, and consented to a search, leading to a warrant and seizure of evidence.
The district court denied suppression, holding the entry justified by an emergency/exigent situation and noting the landlord’s reservation of entry rights.
Huber pled guilty conditionally, reserving appeal on suppression, and was sentenced to twenty years with eight suspended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether emergency/exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry.	Huber argues no emergency existed to justify entry.	Huber contends the entry was not prompted by an emergency but by investigation.	Yes; emergency exception applies; entry justified
Whether actions after entry remained within emergency exception scope.	Huber asserts continued search beyond emergency scope.	Huber argues subsequent search for evidence was not authorized.	Yes; continued search related to emergency and safety tasks
Whether the odor and danger established a nexus between the emergency and Huber’s apartment.	Huber claims no causal link between emergency and his unit.	Huber challenges the connection as insufficient to justify search.	Yes; odor connected to Huber’s apartment, establishing nexus

State v. Nelson, 691 N.W.2d 218 (N.D. 2005) (emergency doctrine requires imminent danger to life or property)
State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1999) (definition of exigent circumstances)
City of Fargo v. Ternes, 522 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1994) (emergency doctrine allows entry without a warrant)
U.S. v. Lloyd, 396 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (ongoing danger from meth labs justifies continued presence/search)
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1978) (reentry at fire scenes may be allowed; limits after emergency ends)
State v. Matthews, 665 N.W.2d 28 (N.D. 2003) (emergency exception focuses on assistance and protection, not crime investigation)
United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (critical time for exigency is at warrantless entry; objective test)