Answer to Hypothetical Question...

The key to this situation is understanding that the test generally used in determining police conduct absent warrant is whether "a reasonable police officer in such a situation with the facts known to him at the time" would have acted in the same or similar manner.

Upon receiving the initial call, the responding officer saw the same activity as originally reported, a suspicious person outside of a residence. The suspicion is heightened when the officer observes the person throw "what appears to be a firearm down, and then runs inside an open door, slamming it closed and locking it behind him."

These are the only facts known to the officers before making the decision as to further action. It's obvious that the conduct of the person gives rise to the apprehension of potential danger to any occupants of the house and perhaps to the officers themselves. The officers have no way of knowing whether the person might have more firearms in his possession or for that matter his state of mind. Flight from the police upon approach is an indicator of consciousness of guilt as well, and in addition to the possession of a firearm, is the key to this entire answer.

Had the initial suspect stayed outside of the residence and cooperated fully with the police, obviously any further action to gain entry to the house absent consent or warrant would have been unlawful. "Exigency" is an exception to the warrant requirement. The officer's conduct in breaking through the door falls within the exigency exception in order to ensure the safety of the occupants of the residence. Once legitimately within the residence, the "Plain View" exception to the warrant requirement comes into play. If the officer(s) plainly saw and plainly knew that they were viewing was a meth lab and since their sight of the meth lab was purely inadvertant, then it becomes fair game for a legal seizure.

When the original suspect is taken into custody, there were multiple reasons to conduct a search incident to lawful arrest. If the arrest was made for a handgun violation, the search and seizure of the small abount of meth would have been unlawful as the arrest for the firearms violation was unlawful. However, given the discovery of the meth lab and the arrest of the persons within the residence, including the original suspect, the search would have been legal search incident to the arrest for meth manufacturing and felonious possession. Therefore even if the original search incident was for a firearms violation, the doctrine of "Inevitable Discovery" would come into play and the small amount of meth seized from the person's pocket would be admissible.

The discovery of the fact afterwards that the firearm was not stolen and comes back registered to the initial suspect may well relieve that person from being charged with any firearms violations, particularly since it's not clear from the facts whether the firearm is a long gun or a handgun (including a short barralled shotgun). However, applying the "reasonable police officer" test to this case would not lead to the suppression of either the evidence of manufacturing meth or to the suppression of the small amount of meth in the initial suspect's pocket.

Given the volatility of the chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, the preferable course of action would be to seal the house and call out additional back-up in addition to the Hazardous Materials Team. One gunshot and the resulting explosion would make most July 4th fireworks celebrations look like Sparklers. During the time required to assemble the necessary resources, the officers could have applied for a Search and Seizure Warrant based upon the facts assembled so far. Once signed by the judge, any conceivable taint would have been removed by presenting the facts to a judicial official and having the warrant signed. In addition, even if there was a error in the initial handling of the entry, the warrant would uphold the seizures and charging based upon the good faith of the officers.

However, even without the extra step of the warrant, the entry into the house as well as the subsequent charging for the meth manufacturing and meth possession would still be legal. In giving this opinion, I consider only the legal issues. I also make no judgments about the safety to the officers of the type of entry gained into the house under these circumstances. Generally, this one is a win for Officers, subject to the peculiarities of the trial judge sitting on the suppression hearing.

Signed, General Counsel To the Crapper