It's 0812 and you just received a call for a suspicious person outside of a residence. As you approach the address the suspect, described as a white male, is positioned in front of the residence, on the front yard. The suspect sees you, throws what appears to be a firearm down, and runs inside of the residence through an open front door, slamming it closed (locked) behind him. A back up unit gives chase and forces entry by kicking in the front door to the residence. Inside you find the suspect and residents of the address. The residents advise that the suspect lives at that address. However, in plain view you observe what appears to be a meth lab in the back bedroom. Although not viewable from outside of the residence, you can see it from the living room and upon making entry there is an overwelming chemical smell. Your partner places all occupants of the residence, including the suspect, under arrest and seize the lab, methamphetamine, and other items used to produce meth. Search incident to arrest the initial suspect has a small amount of meth in his right pocket. You run the firearm through NCIC and it does not come back stolen. After running an ATF trace the firearm comes back registered to the initial suspect (male) at that address. Is this a good case? Why or why not? Answer to be posted after responses!
Posts
ATTENTION ALL SBYNEWS VIEWERS
-
The new SBYNews Website is now up and running. Everyone will need to type
in sbynews.com and save it as one of your favorites. Many of you are
logging in u...
4 years ago
9 comments:
No way in hell should he have given chase after the suspect after he threw down a firearm and ran into the house. Could have been an ambush.
That's a good point 12:31. But, I think the RAS exists to pursue the suspect in order to figure out what he's doing there. You don't know he lives at that house before the partner forces the door. So, he could have just committed a felony or killed someone.
PC to break the door in? The guy throws down a gun, it seems that he is in his yard. All the rest of the crap, the meth lab, etc. is all secondary to an illegal search right?
Hmmmmmmm. I think there is more than enough PC to break the door in.
Oh, I agree. I just got caught up on the fact that my partner had a death wish and was trying to get shot. Me personally, would not have ran into the house without a gang of cops outside ready for a potential shoot out. The bad thing is if he ran in I would have to follow.
It is a good case. Officers received a call in reference to a suspicious subject in front of the residence, upon see the police the subject discards a gun and runs into the residence. At this point the officers were acting in good faith and easly had RAS to follow the subject into the residence. Everything after that is good. Any good officer would have done the same.
It's an illegal entry and a bad seizure. Would be different if ofc met with and identified complainant who could testify to his observations. The anonymous tip isn't enough. If the guy with the gun is on his own property there is no crime, hence no fresh pursuit entry, and no right to plain view seizure of the lab.
...continued
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
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.
Post a Comment