United States v. James Mathis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25592
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Donald Fillers and James Mathis were convicted after a jury trial for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and multiple violations of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)); Fillers was also convicted of making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Sentences: Mathis 18 months, Fillers 44 months.
- Watkins Street Project owned a partially demolished factory containing significant asbestos per an Alternative Actions survey; Fillers sought low-cost abatement and hired ADC to abate only a small portion of the asbestos.
- Mathis (demolition contractor) filed a 10-day notice to the local air bureau that understated the asbestos amount; ADC abated only limited areas; salvage crews and untrained workers removed and handled asbestos improperly, dispersing dust across the site and neighborhood.
- Local air pollution inspectors seized pipe-wrap samples in plain view, which later tested positive for asbestos; EPA ordered an emergency cleanup and Watkins Street completed abatement after the order.
- At trial, the government relied on evidence that defendants knew of asbestos at the site, misled regulators about its quantity, allowed improper removal and demolition to proceed, and provided incomplete survey documents to inspectors.
- The district court denied suppression of the seized samples, admitted testimony about asbestos health effects and a nearby daycare, convicted both defendants on the major counts, and applied sentencing enhancements for environmental release and substantial likelihood of serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless search/seizure of asbestos samples | Government: seizure lawful because site was open field and samples in plain view | Fillers: had privacy/possession interest; seizure required warrant | Court: site was an open field/no legitimate privacy; plain view allowed warrantless seizure—suppression denied |
| Admission of health-effects and daycare testimony | Government: testimony relevant to regulatory purpose and site impact | Fillers/Mathis: testimony unduly prejudicial or cumulative | Court: admission not plain error/abuse of discretion; any error harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and CAA violations | Government: circumstantial evidence and witness testimony show agreement, false notice, and improper handling | Defendants: lacked knowledge/agreement; relied on ADC; disputes in witness testimony | Court: evidence sufficient for convictions on conspiracy, multiple substantive CAA counts, false statement, and obstruction |
| Sentencing enhancements (§2Q1.2: release; substantial likelihood of death or serious injury) | Government: asbestos release and exposure supported enhancements | Defendants: insufficient proof of release/exposure and risk; argued Lindstrom requires proof of substantial exposure | Court: enhancements proper—court found asbestos released, exposures likely and that conduct increased substantial likelihood of serious injury; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (open-fields doctrine excludes expectation of privacy)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (no privacy in garbage left for collection)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain view seizure doctrine requirements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Thorn, 317 F.3d 107 (application of §2Q1.2(b)(2) — substantial likelihood standard)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (distinguished on proof of causation vs. likelihood)
- United States v. Technic Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031 (inference-based proof of environmental contamination)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (business/commercial premises and surveillance/curtilage analysis)
- United States v. Rapanos, 115 F.3d 367 (open-fields discussion for developed/commercial property)