United States v. Matthew Stafford

“effectively working,” id. is America, not tinker with UNITED STATES the courts will

S.Ct. require Plaintiff-Appellee, does that scheme. Olmstead immediate, deinstutionaliza- state-wide dis- eligible developmentally all tion of STAFFORD, plan Defendant- nor that a State’s persons, abled Matthew Id. at in all cases successful. always Appellant. (“It reasonable for is No. 04-30134. until a someone to wait

the State ask available.”) (en- community placement is Appeals, United States Court Georgia). dorsing position of State Ninth Circuit. finding the district court’s supports record April 2005.* Submitted record of has a successful that California leading to a rea- evaluations personalized Aug. Filed and, rate of deinstutionalization sonable moreover, undertaken that California has and to increase its efforts

to continue Developmental residents of

place current community into the when such

Centers Sanchez’s and the

placement is feasible. requested require relief would

Providers’ working plan and to disrupt

us to leeway that Cal- impermissibly

restrict operation in its of de- permitted

ifornia under

velopmentally disabled services

Olmstead.

IV create

Congress unambiguously did not 30(A) §in individually right enforceable §

that would be remediable under by recipients providers of Medic-

either Furthermore,

aid services. Sanchez’s requested Providers’ relief under Title §

II ADA 504 of the Rehabilita- “fundamental require

tion Act would comprehensive, working

alteration” of a deinstitutionalization in contraven-

plan for

tion of Olmstead.

AFFIRMED. * 34(a)(2). unanimously R.App. panel this case suit- Fed. P. This finds argument. able for decision without oral imprisonment. appeal,

months of On he challenges the district court’s denial of his suppress motion to evidence dur obtained ing the warrantless search. He also ar that, gues light United States v. — Booker, —, 125 S.Ct. (2005), L.Ed.2d 621 his sentence consti plain tutes error. hold that the war- entry rantless reasonably doctrine, and that the rifles and ammunition properly seized were ad plain mitted into evidence under the exception to the Fourth war Amendment’s requirement. rant We remand the case to Koch, Nielsen, David B. Broman & permit the district to consider court Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for the defen- whether it would have sentenced Stafford dant-appellant. differently advisory, under the rather than Lang, Michael J. Assistant United mandatory, the Sentencing United States Seattle, WA, Attorney, for the Ameline, Guidelines. See United States v. plaintiff-appellee. Cir.2005) (en

bane). affirm Accordingly, we the district court’s denial of sup Stafford’s motion to press pursuant and remand to Ameline. I 22, 2003, January On fire alarm techni- CANBY, TALLMAN, Before: and Day cian performing pre-scheduled was a RAWLINSON, Judges. Circuit every annual fire alarm check in unit at an TALLMAN, Judge: Circuit apartment complex. The checks were un- F-202, eventful until he reached unit 22, 2003, January of On the afternoon odor, strong where he noticed a “like a County, Washington, Snohomish Sheriffs dog, organic,” emanating from behind responded report officers a of a the front door. He entered the unit. Af- body dead inside what witnesses described testing living ter the fire alarm apartment a in a state blood-spattered as room, he entered the master bedroom to disarray. looking of In the course of alarm. possibly person, or deceased test the second fire He encoun- rifles, deputies suspect- saw two assault a difficulty entering some tered because launcher, ammunition, grenade ed and appeared door to the bedroom to have photographs apparently injecting of a man on the been kicked and was blocked drugs intravenously sitting while in the other side a container. When he was appeared bathroom of what to be the same get through, able to he noticed that apartment. strange odor intensified and that the room splattered large was and smeared with observation, entry,

As a result of this wall, and quantities of blood feces—on subsequent weapons, and seizure floor, bloody rags— on a bunch of charged Matthew was with and though had and that it looked as “there posses- convicted of two counts of unlawful unlit peeked a He was sentenced to 72 been a brawl.” He into the sion of firearm. condition, expect inside. At whereup- did not know what to bathroom, in a similar hearing, testi- suppression He overpowering. on the smell became concern was the primary fied that their a bunsen appeared noticed what also a unit locating victim inside possibility hundreds of as well as needles.1 burner n F-202. this, worried that Upon seeing he became body a in the unit and might be dead kitchen, first cleared the The officers apartment to leave the felt that he had alcove, living room. Before an issue call maintenance because bedroom, Deputy Haley no- the master grave concern.” “of single, green-tipped bullet which he ticed armor-piercing knew to be consistent with immediately told the maintenance Day ammunition. The master bedroom con- Atkinson, should call the person, Haley Deputy tained two closed doors. there could be a dead police closet, doors to a opened one laboratory in the methamphetamine or a military of two AR-15 saw the barrels unit, that he had not had a chance’to storage container. assault rifles behind exiting. much before bathroom storage container top On Day agreed peeked Atkinson military-style camouflage bulletproof vest inside. there could be magazine handgun of 9 mm ammuni- and a property contacted the man- Atkinson then tion; all of this ammunition was also relayed their ager, who called 911 and green-tipped. proceeded The officers then description and a of the unit’s concerns door, to the second which led to the bath- dispatcher. interior to the sheriff’s room. Blood and feces were smeared on County Deputy Sheriff Bond Snohomish every in the and there surface bathroom officer to at around was the first arrive bag bloody bandages was a trash full of p.m. spoke manager He with the 2:32 in hypodermic needles the corner. blood, reports of confirmed the witness floor littered The counter and were feces, needles, odor, strong possi- a and a drug paraphernalia. needles -and other Shortly ble dead in unit F-202. there- Additionally, photo- the officers found after, Haley Deputy arrived and was a a graphs sitting of white male on chair briefed Bond and the others. Follow- appeared what to be the bathroom in unit ing department policy involving for calls a F-202, in a similar state of portrayed dis- body, Deputy Bond called array. The m&nhad a around his arm belt ' supervising sergeant because he injecting appeared and was what to be thought might require that the situation drugs; intravenous there was blood entry.” waiting “forced While for the ser- streaming down his arm from the needle arrive, Haley geant Deputies to Bond and site, handgun and a rested on the counter- plates of performed checks license associ- top. unit to infor- ated with the determine more securing satisfying After the area and they might facing mation what about odor, that, despite themselves no one try identify and to or victim resident unit, remained inside the the officers re- apartment. in the from the weapons moved closet. All three officers entered unit F-202 magazines from each removing While arrived, thirty than sergeant when the less safety purposes, they of the rifles for no- Deputy respond- minutes after Bond first green- ammunition ticed All They ed to the call. of the officers entered tipped as well. also discovered that weapons they had what looked like a with their drawn because one of rifles way clip to the bathroom. 1. He also testified that he saw rifle the closet on his rigorously guarded exceptions mounted on it with the to this grenade launcher They requirement. exception took cus- warrant One such number obliterated. serial doctrine, is the which tody weapons believed re-we cently recognized and because adopted contraband Cer- depict- that the man vantes. 219 F.3d at they were concerned 887-89. in the using drugs photographs ed as emergency doctrine allows law

would return. enforcement officers to enter and secure identified as the man Stafford was later premises without warrant when are and a photographs in the co-inhabitant responding perceived emergency. Id. charged He with two counts the unit. 888; Arizona, Mincey see also of a firearm in possession of unlawful vio- 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 57 L.Ed.2d 922(g)(3), 922(g)(9), §§ lation of 18 U.S.C. (1978) (noting that “[nu]merous state 924(a)(2). He moved to suppress and federal cases” have recognized that F-202, unit argu- evidence obtained from police may respond to emergency situa ing product that it was the unreason- warrant) (internal tions without a citations able search. The district court denied the omitted). The emergency doctrine is based evidentiary hearing. motion after an Staf- justified by that, on and the fact in addi subsequently ford entered a conditional tion to their investigators role as criminal guilty plea and was sentenced to 72 enforcers, and law police also function imprisonment. appeal months of This fol- community as caretakers. lowed. 889; Mincey, F.3d at see also 437 U.S. (noting 98 S.Ct. 2408 that the Court

n II question right did “not situations”); respond Cady A Dombrowski, 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. We review the lawfulness of a (1973) (discussing 37 L.Ed.2d 706 novo, we search and seizure de review community caretaking police function of findings underlying of fact the district officers).2 court’s determination of lawfulness for following requirements The three Deemer, clear error. States v. 354 in justify must be satisfied order to a Cir.2004). 1130, F.3d 1132 emergency warrantless search under the 1 doctrine: (1) police must have reasonable Generally, Fourth Amendment grounds to believe that there is an emer-

prohibits from gency at and an hand immediate need a searching residence without first obtain for their of protection assistance for the ing a warrant. United States v. Cer life or property. vantes, 882, (9th Cir.2000); 219 F.3d 887 (2) primarily The search must not be Carbajal, also 956 see United States by motivated intent to arrest and seize (9th Cir.1992) (“The 924, F.2d 930 Fourth evidence. incorporates strong prefer Amendment warrants.”) (citation (3)

ence for search omit There must be some reasonable ba- ted). exists, sis, cause, however, approximating probable There a narrow set to as- (citation omitted) Additionally, just "protection (finding search reasonable abstract, might, public have been ac- weapon, in where the officers seized a rather not, complished by 'less intrusive’ means does guard, posting a to ensure that it was not than itself, the search unreasonable.” render scene). from the removed Dombrowski, at 93 S.Ct. 2523

1074 Wayne aid. v. United the area or immediate See

sociate (D.C.Cir.1963). States, F.2d searched. place relied on a 911 call The officers here Cervantes, (quoting People 219 F.3d reported that: there people from two who Mitchell, N.Y.2d 383 N.Y.S.2d body; large there were might be dead (1976)). We N.E.2d feces; of the master quantities blood or not the ex- judge whether looked like there had been a bedroom any given in situation ception applies “brawl”; copious quantities of circumstances, totality of the based needles; and there was hypodermic and, other to the war- exceptions as with intense, to be putrid smell seemed the Government bears requirement, rant coming from the bathroom. Before enter- demonstrating that the burden confirmed those details ing, the officers parameters. search at issue meets these provided These facts with the witnesses. Carbajal, recog- 956 F.2d at 930. We grounds to sus- the officers with sufficient t'o that this doctrine could be abused nize body a dead or that pect that there was warrantless, guise as a otherwise serve in might someone be in need of assistance entries, unreasonable but hold F-202. The mere fact that no dead unit- are established Cervantes requirements person actually found that, despite dispens- sufficient to ensure nullify application this case does warrant, ing preferred with the otherwise Holloway, doctrine. See Fourth comport these entries with the (“The fact that no victims Amendment. found, are or that the information ulti- inaccurate, mately proves to be false or any does not render the action less must first examine whether We lawful.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, apart in an report prong we hold that the first is satisfied. ment unit covered blood feces with littering gave needles the floor the officers b a reasonable belief that an prong requires The second us to necessary. at hand and that assistance was subjective divine the officers’ motivation at that it did. The district court found making entry. the time of the warrantless holding supported by our agree. Our All 219 F.3d at 889-90. that sister circuits have also found who officers testified at trial that entered injured or dead reports possibly victims unit F-202 purpose with the sole of deter emergency.3 Addi constitute an bodies mining body whether there was a dead tionally, logic exception the the behind injured assistance, person an in need of holding report our because a of a supports and district the court credited this testimo easily dead can lead officers to be ny. Upon examining the record and find ing contrary, be in need of no evidence to the the might lieve that someone dis assistance); Holloway, F.3d alive 3. See United States v. 290 still be and in need of Unit- Salava, 320, (11th Cir.2002) (7th (noting ed v. F.2d 1336 that war- States 978 324-25 Cir.1992) (finding report searches and entries are reasonable that a of a dead rantless "reasonably body justified of a when the officers believe that warrantless search resi- aid”); dence); person Hogue, is in need of immediate see also United States v. 283 within Richardson, (N.D.Ga.1968) (finding F.Supp. 208 F.3d 848-49 United States Cir.2000) (7th (finding report emergency 627-31 that a situation where there was a victim, report recently raped specific woman constituted an of a wounded and murdered possible body). emergency person report and a of a dead situation because the could Atkinson, factual determination was not that possibly trict court’s unit, (reviewing Id. at clearly erroneous. inside could credibility reasonably for possibly trial determinations fear that someone was court’s error). injured inside, performing duty Additionally, In their as as well. clear (combined caretakers, testimony the officers were officers’ community with the in- to formation primarily Day motivated the desire had from Atkinson) We conclude that primary pur- collect evidence.4 shows their as well. prong pose second is satisfied the unit towas deter- mine whether there was a dead or c person, According- not to obtain evidence. ly, the search final was reasonable and the offi- prong The third and lawfully cers were unit emergency requires searching doctrine that “an offi F-202 only emergency must be limited to those because of the at hand. cer’s search necessary respond per to the areas argues that the Govern at emergency.” ceived Id. 890. We find ment telephonic failed to show that a war from prong that this is satisfied the limited rant was either unavailable or impractica Day of the search. and Atkinson scope circumstances, ble under the relying on F-202, manager both entered unit told the (9th Alvarez, United States v. 810 F.2d 879 issue, that this was the unit at and then Cir.1987), involving exigent a case circum confirmed for the officers their observa stances than emergency rather doc tions and the reasons their concerns. (which recognized by trine was not our search was conducted in a manner and Cervantes). years court until 13 later scope appropriately tailored to the basis burden, however, This is not part entry. for the emergency doctrine as enunciated in Cer vantes, conclude that the court showing required district nor has this been properly applied precedent applying doctrine our the doctrine. Cervantes, case, correctly 888; in this found that the at F.3d Bradley, available facts the officers’ war- F.3d Cir.2003); Deemer, 1132; entry rantless into and search of unit F- at 354 F.3d believed, Martinez, reasonably 202. The officers United States v. 406 F.3d (9th Cir.2005).5 Day based on statements obtained from time, thought ing Deputy depart- 4. The fact that the officers that there Bond followed might drug protocol involving use evidence of in F-202 does ment for cases application supervisor. not bar doc- unattended death and called for a See, 886-87, e.g., expressly trine. Even noted that officers Alvarez (applying doctrine where permitted delay, trying without suspected methamphetamine warrant, the officers also telephonic obtain a in order to “as- production, long primary so as their motiva- agents semble a [...] team brief evidence). 881-82; Salava, to obtain tion was not involved.” Id. see also that, (noting 978 F.2d at the 324-25 in con- circumstances, exigent import telephonic we text of an Even if were this unavailability impracticability evaporate simply "did the warrant re- not quirement entry to the doctrine's re- deferred their while took reason- quirements exigent precautions from the circumstance able to reduce the risk of serious others”; context, injury the burden would be satisfied in this to themselves or officers there minutes); thirty passed approximately seventy-five than waited case. Less minutes be- 1357, Jones, tween the first officer the v. 635 F.2d 1362 when arrived on United States officer, (8th Cir.1980) sergeant, (finding “waiting peri- scene and when the the that the back-up premises. applicable exception to officer entered the Dur- od does not defeat the 1076 The determination of whether

2 cause to believe probable the officers had the Having détermined unlawful, illegal, that the items seized were by the entry justified was warrantless activity is criminal ob or associated with doctrine, must next resolve we apply it to the “actual jective, but we the evidence seized of whether the issue enforce belief of the law perceived and/or admissible properly F-202 was from unit ... in search engages as he ment officer any evi police may seize at trial. “[T]he Prim, 698 States v. seizure.” during the plain view dence that Cir.1983). (9th 972, This stan F.2d 975 activ legitimate emergency course of their to know require the officers dard does 393, at 98 S.Ct. Mincey, 437 U.S. ities.” illegal. See United that the item seized is (citations omitted); see emphasis 2408 (8th Cecil, 1178, 1180 v. 457 F.2d “To fall 219 F.3d at 888. also Cir.1972) that, involving in a case (noting exception, two re plain within the view shotgun, plain view seizure of sawed-off be met: the officers must quirements must gun gave proba “[t]he observation lawfully searching the area where the that a cause for the reasonable belief ble incriminatory is found and the evidence crime, of a-contraband fire possession the immediate nature of the evidence must be committed[,]” arm, and that being 1270, Sherry, Roe v. ly apparent.” an officer requires there is “no rule which Cir.1996) (citations omitted); see 1272 all elements of knowledge to have the 128, California, v. 496 U.S. also Horton an article crime when he views which 135-37, 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 110 S.Ct. contraband”) (ci reasonably appears to be Hicks, 321, (1990); 480 U.S. Arizona omitted); Horton, 496 tation see also U.S. 326-27, 347 107 94 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 130-33, (applying at 2301 S.Ct. (1987). the officers plain exception view where is satisfied requirement The first executing while a search weapons noticed because, above, the here as we conclude robbery; proceeds warrant for the of a entry warrantless weapons had been used knew doctrine, thereby permitting robbery armed and seized them lawfully enter unit F-202. the officers accordingly). Cervantes, 219 F.3d at 888-89. The “immediately ap find that the ex requirement plain second case; parent” prong is satisfied incriminating nature of ception, that probable officers had cause to believe that “immediately apparent,” the evidence be illegal. the rifles and ammunition were “prob whether the officers had focuses on checking or an While associated able cause to believe were person, the officers first saw what Horton, 496 activity.” with criminal reasonably armor-pierc believed to be Hicks, 2301; n. see also S.Ct. Then, ing living bullet in the room. when 326-27, 1149; Texas 480 U.S. at closet, they opened the officers saw Brown, 103 S.Ct. (“A (1983) magazine armor-piercing of mm ammuni ‘practical, 75 L.Ed.2d storage top tion on of a small container incriminating probability nontechnical’ and the of two AR-15 assault rifles all that is re barrels evidence is involved is (citation omitted); protruding from behind the container. quired.”) Sherry, bed, placed weapons When the F.3d 1272-73. rule”) (citation omitted). entry in this This warrantless the warrant our conclusion that case. assertion does not alter (1993) (inter- guns had 123 L.Ed.2d 508 noted that one the officers omitted). an obliterated nal grenade quotation a launcher with citations and marks serial number.6 During sentencing, Stafford’s the dis- reasonably that believed trict court into took account the circum- items, trappings these found amidst appear stances of Stafford’s failure to abuse, illegal. It is ille- drug severe original sentencing hearing. his Specifi- armor-piercing ammunition gal possess cally, appearing after at the suppression (18 929), § an possess unregis- U.S.C. hearing a guilty conditional (26 5861), § grenade tered launcher U.S.C. plea, monitoring Stafford unhooked his de- ground-off a firearm with a possess and to vice, bracelet, cut off the and fled. He (26 5842). § number U.S.C. More- serial large remained at for five until months law over, given photographs that the offi- him caught up enforcement with on Febru- depicting cers found a man the bath- ary being stopped 2004. After room, injecting bleeding and intravenous violation, presented vehicular Stafford a arm, handgun resting into his a drugs false Texas driver’s license in the name of counter, the officers had reason to Thorn,” “David which he later admitted that a violation believe there was having police during used to evade his time § 922(g)(3),being drug of 18 user U.S.C. at-large. He then led on a foot- Ac- possession or addict in firearm. pursuit, engaged struggle, in a and threat- that the “immedi- cordingly, we conclude ened the a firearm officers with that he and, ately prong is satisfied apparent” ultimately being claimed to have before moreover, lawfully that the evidence was subdued. plain exception under the seized The district court found his of fully prosecution admissible in the of Staf- fense level to be based on admissions ford. plea that made in his conditional agreement. The district court also im B posed two-level enhancement for ob Finally, we address the defen justice struction of based on Stafford’s ab When, sentencing challenge. dant’s as sconding pretrial from his release and his here, appeal an issue on defendant raises appear sentencing, up failure to the district raised before wardly history departed from criminal cat court, may only plain we review error. 1) egory category III to IV because: Staf 52(b); See FED. R. P. see also CRIM. history adequately criminal did not ford’s Ortiz, United States v. of his past reflect the seriousness criminal (9th Cir.2004). requires standard This 2) conduct; a strong there was likeli 1) 2) error; that is plain; there be: hood of recidivism. The district court then 3) rights. that affects substantial imposed impris a sentence of 72 months’ States, 373, 389, Jones v. United U.S. onment. (1999). 119 S.Ct. 144 L.Ed.2d 370 Moreover, relief, appears upon in order to we it the facts warrant While justice “seriously must find that the error af which the obstruction of enhance- fairness, integrity[,] public admitted ment was based were feet[s] defendant, reputation judicial proceedings.” Unit nonetheless Ame- we follow Olano, 725, 736, approach. ed 113 line’s “limited remand” actually grenade 6. The fact that the launcher was used like a launcher affixed to an assault propel legally weapon. it flares is irrelevant: looked 1084; justified by the emer- apartment States v. was not F.3d at see also United Moreno-Hernandez, 03-30387, gency doctrine.1 No. 2005) (9th 1560269, at *9 Cir. June

WL majority opinion recognizes, a As the (“a pending in all proper limited remand is pre warrantless search of a residence is involving unpre- appeals direct criminal See, e.g., sumptively unreasonable. United error”) (amending 397 F.3d Booker served Karo, 714-15, States v. Cir.2005)) (emphasis original). (1984). 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 We However, we “do not assume that however, have, permitted a narrow excep pursue will want to resen- every defendant tion to that rule when the conditions of an give tencing,” the district court must Staf present. are promptly notify to it opportunity ford the (9th Cir.2000). Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882 “opt out” of the Ameline that he wishes required for an The first condition .emer 1084. procedure. “police search is that gency that grounds have ‘reasonable to believe Ill there at hand and an ”, determine that the warrantless en- immediate need for their assistance’ try into unit F-202 was under the preserve protect against life or serious that the emergency doctrine and evidence bodily injury. (quoting People Id. at 889 properly therein was seized and observed Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 383 N.Y.S.2d plain exception. admissible under view (N.Y.1976)).2 I 347 N.E.2d Ameline, Pursuant we further deter- requirement that conclude has not required. mine that a limited remand is been met here. Accordingly, we affirm Stafford’s convic- inspector The fire alarm and mainte- if tion and remand his sentence serially nance man who first entered the court to reconsider

wishes the district apartment a strong were confronted with him whether it would have sentenced dif- bathroom, strongest smell that was in the now-advisory ferently under Guide- blood and saw feces strewn about. lines. They justifiably appalled by the mess CONVICTION AFFIRMED SEN- opined that there could abe REMANDED. TENCE apartment in the would room, living never know. Neither in the CANBY, dissenting in Judge, Circuit the bedroom or the bathroom did either of part: body, these men see did not tell respectfully body. I from the affir- had dissent seen a In- deed, mance of Stafford’s conviction because I the maintenance man said conclude that the warrantless search of the statement be a could my 1. If view that the search was unconstitu- one modification. Mitchell’s first condition prevailed, tional had it would have been un- “protec referred to the immediate need for necessary challenge to deal with Stafford’s property.” tion life or Id. In Cervantes we My prevail, his sentence. how- did preservation protection ruled that of life or ever, majority’s and I therefore concur in the against bodily injury qualify serious would sentencing treatment of the issue and in the open exception, but we left limited remand. question” protection “more difficult whether Cervantes, property would suffice. adopted In we the three condi Mitchell, F.3d at 889 7.n. tions for an set forth in 383 N.Y.S.2d 246. 347 N.E.2d 609. with rooms, just entering any an of of the was indication and had seen apartment the anyone The fire alarm no evidence that apart- a mess there was. was what possible about the ment. inspector was concerned that body of a because of a smell

presence Indeed, the officers if did not act as decaying could be meat or thought he required. their assistance was conveyed concerns Both men their flesh. It was over half an hour after the arrival officers before the search. to the of the first officer on the scene that the evidence, In apartment. it entered highly speculative On meantime, they ran plate license checks on objectively not reasonable believe was possibly vehicles believed to be connected body apartment. in the that there was apartment, they with the and conferred open argument, if is point Even that management apartment. with the however, certainly objectively no there was true, majority opinion It as the here ground believing that emer- reasonable says, delay that necessarily some does not of the officers was re- gency assistance negate the existence of an emergency, but holding report that the quired. The cases circumstances, present in the when others body of a suffices to create already apartment had entered the and that grounded proposition are either (or dead) home, persons found no live dead, see “body” might quite not be delay suggests emergency. the lack of an Richardson, F.3d States v. Although subjective the officers’ belief (7th Cir.2000), injured that other or may not enter into the determination might present, persons or a murderer first, objective requirements whether the Arizona, 385, 392, Mincey see Richardson, met, of an are see (1978). 57 L.Ed.2d 290 208 F.3d at the officers’ conduct does Here, objective support there was no go requirement to the second of an emer- blood, There was but it possibility. either gency, to which I now turn. by explainable presence dried and smell, syringes. was a but bodies of There requirement permissi- The second “ quite that are not dead do not smell like that search ble search is ‘[a] Richardson, rotting meat. 208 F.3d at by primarily must not be motivated intent ” (upholding upon search based 911 re- and seize evidence.’ arrest rape Mitchell, and murder and the location port of (quoting 219 F.3d at 890 “[tjhis 609). body, noting that is not a 347 N.E.2d at Al- N.Y.S.2d report case where the indicated that the though there was no direct evidence of a languishing had in the house for or been or another victim fact, In days.”). person apartment, good several the smell was more in the there was a readily explained by the maintenance deal of evidence of crime known to the observation, to the before conducted their man’s communicated inspector toilet in the The fire alarm and the police, bathroom search. reported to stopped and there were feces about. maintenance man the officers that, any- apartment, in the bathroom of the There was no reason believe thousands apartment alive in the need had seen hundreds even one was assistance; inspector loudly syringes, along had with what the fire alarm the fire inspector his before described as a bunsen burner.3 knocked or announced entrance time of the search inspector testified that he officers testified that 3. The fire alarm dealing drug activity they did believe believed there had been lab, sugges- suspected methamphetamine methamphetamine lab. There is no but the he suppress, of the motion to maintenance denial inspector alarm The fire blood, was consis- to with- permit seen which would remand to man had also The con- drug intravenous use. tent with plea guilty. draw his highly apartment itself dition of heavy drug use. The fire

consistent with that he told the inspector

alarm also magazine in the gun clip

had seen

apartment. manager also apartment

The assistant that the before the search

told the officers question was rented to apartment KROTOVA; Anastasia Lioudmila G. living that a man had also been woman but Krotova; Krotova, Aleksandra manager there. The told the woman Petitioners, identify occupant the male she could either lease,or pay him on the could put per month if she wished him to extra $100 GONZALES, Attorney Alberto R. anonymous. The woman had cho- remain General, Respondent. pay sen to extra $100! short, clearly probable In No. 04-70806. that evidence of crime was cause to believe Appeals, United States Court of very apartment,

to be found but Ninth Circuit. little reason to believe that an required. Although recog- I entrance was Argued and June 2005. Submitted findings of nize the deference owed to the Aug. Filed regarding underlying the district court facts, I totality on the of circumstances accept

cannot a conclusion that this was a

true search and not search mind, my To this is

for evidence of crime.

exactly of a situation that re- the kind

quires magistrate the decision of a neutral propriety

to determine the of a search. question procedures

There is no that the telephonic warrant were in search

place. The officers were scene and apartment

the situation was not view, they

changing. my required In

to secure a warrant before Alvarez,

apartment. See United States (9th Cir.1987). 882-84 Not require a warrant in the circumstances impermissibly

of this case is to dilute I

protections of the Fourth Amendment.

would therefore reverse the district court’s sion, grounds methamphetamine

tion that the officers had reasonable which labs often believing danger explo- present. that there was a 219 F.3d at 891.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Matthew Stafford

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 3, 2005

Citation: 416 F.3d 1068

Docket Number: 04-30134

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.