United States v. Chad A. Lloyd

clearly reversed if it is fense Lopez-Arce, v.

erroneous. United States Cir.2001). (8th It is the

267 F.3d prove that he war-

defendant’s burden a role reduction.

rants argues played

Mr. Alfaro he Mr.

smаller role than Torres the con therefore deserves a role re

spiracy and decidedly a defendant less

duction. Even co-defendants, however,

culpable than his if

is not entitled to reduction he was

deeply involved the offense of convic Alverez,

tion. v. United States Cir.2000). The evidence clearly Mr. Alfaro’s conviction

sustaining deeply

establishes he was involved

conspiracy methamphet to distribute Therefore,

amine. the district court did

not commit when it clear error denied Mr. reduction,

Alfaro’s motion for a role

we affirm the sentence.

IV affirm judgment

We the district court’s respects.

in all America,

UNITED STATES Appellee,

Plaintiff — LLOYD, A.

Chad Defendant-

Appellant.

No. 04-1898.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 2004.

Filed: Feb. Scheetz, Rap- argued, Cedar

Raphael M. ids, IA, appellant. for Atty., Asst. U.S. Teig, argued, Robert L. IA, Rapids, appellee. for Cedar MURPHY, HEANEY, and Before BEAM, Judges. Circuit MURPHY, Judge. Circuit Lloyd pled guilty possession to Chad A. to with intent distrib- felony drug conviction. previous after a ute motion to court1 his district denied residence, and from his suppress evidence right his agreement preserved plea Lloyd was sentenced ruling. appeal appeals, arguing months and now denying his court the district erred We affirm. suppress. motion repair an automobile Lloyd operated building leased half of a shop in one and he also Sylvester, Larry and Bethel con- Sylvesters became there. lived vehicles some abandoned cerned about March and on Lloyd kept property, Linn called the Sylvester Mrs. request assis- County Sheriffs office Sergеant Gene contacting him. tance respond- Hamilton Deputy Nick Parks and around residence ed and went Reade, of Iowa. United Linda R. The Honorable Judge the Northern District District Slates room, Sylvester and p.m. Sylvester 6:80 with Mrs. her around the and Mrs. granddaughter Teisha. At that time the walked farther inside. The fol- deputies knew there was a valid outstand- lowed with their flashlights, and the smell on a ing got stronger they approached arrest warrant misde- of ether charge. meanor the bedroom the rear of the residence. they flashlights When shone their into that residence, they Lloyd’s at When arrived room, they saw a bottle with hoses near Parks and Hamilton went to the back of blowing fan that was out of a fumes make- they building knew he had a They shift air funnel. recognized it as a security Sylves- camera in the front. The every- lab and ordered Lloyd’s ters went to the front door on side building safety one out of the reasons. knocked, of the building and but there was no answеr. at the They, Meanwhile back of the also discovered a dog appar- residence, Sergeant ently heard noises in- Parks had caused the noises heard from side, outside; including dog the sound of a fan. He also appeared to them to be out, saw that were lethargic blacked and intoxicated windows from the ether and he a strong smelled odor of ether. deputies fumes. The removed dog deputies outside, When the went around to building secured thе from the then building, front of the Parks Major noticed two called Yount of Drug Enforce- ether lying ground cans on the next to an ment Administration Task Force. When abandoned vehicle. Both cans had been Yount p.m., arrived the .scene at 8:21 he punched open. told Parks go get a search warrant. deputies followed the two women as When Parks returned to his went they over to the other side of the office to draft a warrant application, he building Sylvester’s where ‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍Mrs. son Mark experienced problem one after another. operated a garage. There encoun- He was unable to regular access his Hines, Terry tered a friend of Mark’s who recently warrant forms because his moved had recently moved into the building. computer up. locked After no one deputies prior knew Hines from arrests for returned his call for help to access drug offenses, and domestic abuse computer, and he he lоcated some other forms told them that Lloyd he did not think began type application. at home although affidavit, he had been at the resi- complete Parks was able to dence earlier. which Sylves- described the call from Mrs. ter, building where Sergeant Parks continued to hear the lived, Lloyd discovery and the of the meth- fan and Lloyd’s place, other noises in amphetamine lab. Then typewriter Sylvesters go decided to inside to look broke down before Parks could type the They him. Lloyd’s entered of side warrant, warrant application or the and he building through an unlocked inside door filled them out hand. which separated the two parts. Teisha door, knocked Sylvester and Mrs. application On the form he wrote out Lloyd’s called name as entered into a hand a list of items to be seized from part kitchenette of a large garage area. It residence. He stated that the offi- inside, was dark and Tеisha asked the “any cers wanted to seize controlled sub- deputies stances, to come in to help moneys, [sic], them find a plus legers discovered[, Property rele- or] being from offenses,2 of 21 violation U.S.C. in in criminal as evidence material vant and (count 841(b)(1)(B), 841(a)(1), §§ and 851 - prosecution.” one); marijuana with intent possession of magis- at a Parks' arrived state Sergeant having previously after been to distribute the search warrant trate’s residence felony drug оf- of one or more convicted magistrate p.m. at 9:39 application fenses, 21 in violation U.S.C. and warrant application read (count 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(D), §§ and 851 telling questions. After asked several two); ammunition possessing affi- add some information to Parks to having previously affecting commerce after she application, signed davit and by punishable of a crime been convicted magistrate apparent- search warrant. one exceeding for а term imprisonment portion of the notice that the ly did not §§ year, 922(g)(1) violation of U.S.C. items to be seized describing the three). 924(e) (count Lloyd moved to blank, and- Parks testified had left been obtained from the suppress evidence been not realize what had that he did that ground search of his residence suppres- morning of the omitted until warrant was defective because the search n hearing. sion the items seized. it failed list search magistrate signed the After the magistrate adopted court The district warrant, Parks called the officers and recommendation judge’s report them Lloyd’s residence and informed It deny the concluded motion. He then had a warrant. that he obtained authority Lloyd’s res- to enter officers had copies and re- office to make went to his arrest warrant be- idence execute offi- Lloyd’s residence. Other turned to belief they had a reasonable cause building, meanwhile entered cеrs had could that the officers Lloyd present, search court found but the district labora- have seized the arrived until after begin did not Parks doctrine, view plain under tory warrant, Lloyd finding which with the pursuant to the subsequent During the contests. made in good defective search warrant lab that seized the faith. during the initial entrance been seen was de- suppress motion to After the .residence, grams of powdered 10.99 (cid:127) nied, guilty a conditional Lloyd view entered found indictment, which of the lab, to count one grams plea as the 471.97 room same Lloyd had been convicted In March 1990 124.401. § cocaine, delivering violation Iowa Code 740, possession charged him with of metham- 466 U.S. (1984) (“When

phetamine with intent distribute. As govern- L.Ed.2d 732 part plea agreement, Lloyd main- only ment’s interest is to arrest for a right appeal the denial of his tained the offense, minor ... government usually suppression motion and the should be allowed enter the home to [to counts two аnd three. The dismissed execute the with a warrant arrest] marijuana and ammu- counts based on the upon probable by issued cause a neutral nition found in the search were thus both magistrate.”). and detached Lloyd dismissed.3 was then sentenced to Although no one answered the door af- imprisonment. He now ap- months Sylvesters ter the knocked and depu- peals from the court’s order. by ties told Hines that were he did not Lloyd argues that the district court home, Lloyd think the offiсers erred the Leon faith applying good heard a fan coming and other noises rule, exclusionary exception to the see inside the residence and Hines said he had Leon, United States day. seen there that The windows of (1984), S.Ct. 82 L.Ed.2d 677 and that residence were covered dark the plain neither view nor circum paper, and it was not until deputies the exceptions require stances to the warrant went inside that learned that the applied. government ment responds of unexplained source thе noises awas correctly court applied the district dog. We conclude that the district court good faith exception and that the search finding did not err in its justified and seizure were also under the had a reasonable that Lloyd belief view and circumstances ex They inside his residence. were thus enti- ceptions. We review the factual findings tled to enter to underlying suppression execute arrest warrant. order for clear error legal court’s cоnclusions de Gabrio, The Fourth provides

novo. United States v. 295 Amendment F.3d (8th Cir.2002). 880, 882 that no search warrants shall issue without probable cause “supported Oath or af There is no issue here about the firmation, and particularly describing the deputies’ original entry resi searched, place to be persons and the or dence. A lawful arrest warrant carries Const, things to be seized.” U.S. amend. authority with it the to enter the residence satisfy particularity IV. To require person nаmed the warrant ‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍amendment, ment of the a warrant must long order to execute the warrant as as the sufficiently be definite to enable the executing officers the warrant have a rea searching identify officers to property sonable belief that the suspect resides at be seized. Steele v. United currently present and is at the dwelling. States, 498, 503-04, 414, 267 U.S. 45 S.Ct. York, Payton 573, 602-03, v. New 445 U.S. (1925). 69 performed L.Ed. 757 A search 1371, (1980). 100 S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d 639 under a warrant that particularize does not applies This rule tо misdemeanor warrants as well items to be seized is those for felonies. United unconstitutional. Smith, (8th 811, 981, States v. 363 Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. Cir.2004); Wisconsin, 988, (1984). 3424, see also Welsh v. 82 L.Ed.2d 737 methamphet- Because of the amount marijuana found in his residence and the am- responsible, for which was held munition was not factored into the calcula- his base offense level was not affected tion of his sentence. Ramirez, 540 v. U.S. cent decision Groh the search portion In this case L.Ed.2d 1068 S.Ct. to bе seized detailing the items warrant (2004), damages action though in Even a constitutional blank. completely was left at all to be seized that did not de volving the items a warrant description of affidavit Parks’ seized. The Court the items was included scribe the warrant application, defending warrant officer was in the there that held words not contain suitable immunity did qualified itself entitled to because not the affidavit. incorporate reference believe “no reasonable officer could boxes checked there were While par comply [the that did not warrant type of general categorize warrant ticularity] requirement was valid.” seized, not warrant did property Lloyd argues that 1293-94. spe- for a to the affidavit the reader

refer rely here did not v. States description. See United cific his residence before Parks they entered Cir.1990). 72, 76-77 Curry, points He also returned with warrant. the omissions that Parks did notice out an the result of seized as Evidence morning heari until inadmissible, generally is illegal search ng.4 655-57, Ohio, Mapp (1961), but 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 S.Ct. that the exclu- asserts to that rule. developed exceptions has law police designed is to deter sionary rule exception court relied on The district here, ‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍there was none misconduct denying requirement warrant deficiency in caused holding that suppress, Lloyd’s motion to negligence error or rather by a clerical objectively rea “in hád acted the officers Leon, at 468 U.S. See misconduct. than invali subsequently reliance on sonable were boxes It notes that there 921. v. States warrant.” United dated search the warrant de- face checked 3405, 922, Leon, 82 104 S.Ct. 468 U.S. type property seized scribing the (1984). 677 L.Ed.2d objectively rea- that was argues it it on a rely Sergeant Parks sonable search warrant Lloyd argues this that magistrate. signed by a warrant search failing to list by facially deficient was so good faith not out does rule Groh executing to be seized the items argues, it because in this exception case pre,- reasonably not have could drafting of during the exigency there that contends it to be valid. He sumed during application in mentioned of warrant type this Groh, n. at 1294 9 124 S.Ct. itself. reasonably have that no officer could Leon had not officer there out that the (pointing 3405 on. relied any exigency exist- sort circumstances of the contended (“[Djepending when he drafting time or during case, so facial- a warrant ed particular search). deficient-ie., particularize conducted failing ly things or the to be searched place we need not conclude We can- executing officers be seized-that exception valid.”). good faith the Leon reach reasonably presume it to be Lloyd’s resi- because re- case Supreme Court’s cites the Lloyd also (8th Maholy, 1 F.3d v. United States Su argument, that the additional Iowa 4. An 1993). Leon to state preme apply does not Cir. Court actors, this federal case. effect in has no justified Walsh, grounds.5 Cir.2002), dence was on other 299 F.3d 729 limit- Objects plain properly view of an officer ed search without a warrant upheld position objects to view the may be where officers had probable cause to be- seized and admitted into evidence. Harris lieve they methamphet- discovered a States, 234, 236, v. United there, amine lab. As the court noted (1968). 992, 19 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1067 “potential methamphetamine hazards of concedes that lab documented, manufacture are well nu- deputies they seen when entered merous upheld cases have limited warrant- view, plain with the arrest warrant was in less by police searches officers who had he methamphet- but contends probable they cause to believe had uncov- the bowl was not discovered until on-going ered an methamphetamine manu- the later search with thе defective search Walsh, facturing operation.” 299 F.3d at warrant and it must therefore be sup- (collecting precedent from other cir- pressed. The argues that exi- cuits). gent circumstances entitled the officers to Here deputies entered resi- they seize the items saw in view dence to execute the arrest warrant and the counter. underneath saw the lab in plain dangers The created metham point view. At this deputies could phetamine сan justify labs an immediate proceeded have with a limited search un- search because of exigent circumstances der the circumstances exception to to the volatile nature of such “[d]ue labs.” requirement once States, Kleinholz United they legally “entered house ... they (8th Cir.2003). When required were not ignore illegal Lloyd’s residence, first entered drug operation.” Kleinholz, 339 strong smelled a odor of ether fact that Parks nevertheless also saw the lab in plain went to obtain search warrant shows the In view. similar circumstances we have officers’ respect for the Fourth Amend- recognized an immediate right to search. ment despite circumstances officers in Kleinholz also smelled they encountered. Because of the unex- ether outside a residence they where had pected problems experienced Parks gone to investigate anonymous an tip computer and typewritеr, about a methamphetamine lab. We held application process delayed. was they were entitled to enter to search for a lab seen, Lloyd and that once it they was contends that could the circum- lawfully reenter to reduce the stances exception immediate does not apply because of explosion risks fire and posed by such the did not seize the methamphet- Similarly, labs. in United States v. amine until three and a half aftеr hours 5. We passing note in that the papers circumstances fill out the hand because his com- quite here are different from puter those in Groh typewriter functioning, and were not there exigency where was no the and search delay there no deliberate or indifference was not even conducted day until the after the requirement. to the warrant These officers Here, warrant was issued. spotting type after recognized faced the of situatiоn the " lab, methamphetamine active the officers va- Groh danger- Court in which 'officers in the reasons, building safety cated the secured process ous and making difficult of arrests perimeter, DEA, the called in the executing and sent and require search warrants’ 'some ” Groh, Parks to obtain a search warrant which was latitude.’ 124 S.Ct. at n. 9 by magistrate issued a Garrison, after (quoting Maryland information was request. added at her Although Parks had (1987)). to L.Ed.2d n seizure of the justified the residencе, quirement at his initially arrived they in same room found the methamphetamine awith Parks returned Sergeant after until lab. as the not mean delay did That warrant. search ended be- circumstances

that (cid:127) judgment affirm the Accordingly, we cases have entry. Our the second fore the district court. dangers continue that recognized dissenting. in example, HEANEY, Judge, Walsh For Circuit hours. some methamphetamine by a created exigency majority The has respectfully I dissent. it after somе two hours existed still lab important case simple a rather but taken Walsh, entry. an initial discovered The complex into a one. it converted time Similarly, is whether to decided sole issue Lloyd’s residence reentered officers suppress metham- motion defendant's methamphetamine in a inherent dangers should premises from his phetamine seized in the Nothing exist. continued lab law en- Whether the granted. been have exigency existing suggests record who conducted officers forcement the officers by the time disappeared had lab when methamphetamine saw search steps had No building. reentered irrelevant, is premises they entered the to dismantle interim taken been charge which the sole because had perimeter lab, outside ‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍intent to possession with guilty was pled secured. been the rec- methamphetamine, and distribute officers building evidence -establishes ord officers reentered After the lab, or other any methamphetamine not see did dismantle entry initial during their methamphet the bowl with they saw contraband Lloyd’s apartment. On their view. on the floor bedroom, the darkened original justi- initially sought The aid of with the the lab spotted they metham- of the seizure fy the search and seen the they had not flashlights, but their war- on the basis phetamine went back methamphetamine. When magistrate. from a they obtained rant lab was where the the bedroom inside rejected approach, district court located, they saw acted held but counter, open under an on the floor bowl serving the preparing faith good hose, heater, gloves. near discovery warrant, led to which hearing at the testified Parks methamphetamine, scene took photographs majority suppressed. not be should 10 accu it, 6 and that exhibits they found defec- that the search holds it, metham and that the rately depicted analy- tive, rejeсts good-faith the also was found in exhibit 10 shown phetamine agree I court. by the district employed sis view. plain Thus, counts. majority on both the with' methamphet- of the seizure the in the circumstances conclude We govern- if only justified the can reentry case, amine the officers’ of this neither the exception that an established discovery of the ment building nor into its other- permitted requirement violated in the bowl The ma- -intrusion. unconstitutional Exigent circum- wise Fourth Amendment. its supрort on Kleinholz jority relies time the at to exist continued stances justified circumstances building, and the view reentered methamphet- seizure re- to the warrant exception view plain view, my clearly In Q. Okay. amine. reliance is in your So no time initial Kleinholz, court, entry misplaced. rely- you In this did find methamphet- amine? Collins, ing on stated that A. No. [Ojnce law enforcement had entered the legally, pursuant probable house Q. Okay. you marijuana Did find the circumstances, сause and your during entry? initial required ignore were not illegal A. No. rather, drug operation; were free Q. Okay. What about shotgun to take note and even anything seize ” shells? .... “plain view. “Under the doctrine, police may object view seize A. No. (1) if without a warrant the officer did 69.) (Suppression Hr’g. Tr. at not violate the Fourth Amendment arriving place at the from which the accept majority’s To position, one (2) viewed, plainly evidence could be acceрt actually must first that there were object’s incriminating character is imme- (that is, exigent circumstances an emer- (3) diately apparent, and the officer has situation) gency justified which would have right object lawful of access to the thorough a more Lloyd’s search of resi- itself.” Still, dence. since the methamphetamine admittedly view, in plain just Kleinholz, 339 (quoting United search of the residence would not suffice to Collins, States v. sustain the district court’s judgment. Cir.2003)) (citation omitted) (emphasis Rather, one go further, must even added). accept speculative and unsupported proposition that such Here, search-purportedly government has not met its designed extinguish any exigeney-would showing burden of that the methamphet- be so extensive that it would have neces- seized, and the basis of charge sarily resulted in discovery conviction, in plain view. On the methamphetamine. This we should not contrary, evidence adduced on do. I respectfully therefore dissent. point at the hearing came Lloyd’s attorney; did not topic even presen- broach its Hamilton,

tation. Nick an officer with the

Linn County Department, Sheriffs testi-

fied that he present during the initial Lloyd’s dwelling actually part initial,

took cursory search.

He stated that he entered resi-

dence and made certain that no one was present America, UNITED inside STATES of exiting. before Under Appellee, v. questioning Lloyd’s attorney, Hamil- ton ‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍unequivocally asserted that none of the supports

contraband that charges against Lloyd was during found Augustin LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, search: Apрellant. notes light switch. ware, tubs, As soon as the glass any en- clandestine lab mate- tered, they very noticed a strong [sic], odor of riels etc.” He failed write the They ether. flashlights shone their items to be seized on the face of the search marijuana, five rounds of ammunition. however, warrant did warrant, and the applica- incorporating There evidence language contain boxes on He did check hearing affidavit. tion and property which on floor below an described an bowl uncovered heater, hose, that has been “Property counter, to be next to a open seized law[,] Property, in violation obtained gloves. Property illegal[,] which is possession charges grand jury A indicted with intent possessed or used possession public committing means of used as the having previously after intent to distribute offense prevent offense or concealed felony drug or more convicted of one been

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Chad A. Lloyd

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 2, 2005

Citation: 396 F.3d 948

Docket Number: 04-1898

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.