CA4: Odor of gasoline around an apartment complex led to a valid emergency entry by the fire marshal who found a crude bomb

Report of gasoline fumes by neighbors brought the fire marshal who smelled gas around an apartment building. Seeing an open window, he looked inside and saw an open gas can and a stronger odor of gas. He got a key from the apartment manager and entered and found the accouterments of crude bomb making which he photographed and removed. Defendant was indicted for possession of a destructive device. The motion to suppress was denied; the entry was justified by the emergency doctrine. Officers got a search warrant to look at defendant’s computer for evidence of bomb making searches and documents, and they found child porn which led to another search warrant. United States v. Dean, 243 Fed. Appx. 780 (4th Cir. 2007), certiorari denied by Dean v. United States, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 12411 (U.S., Nov. 26, 2007) (unpublished).

Government created exigent circumstances argument was waived by not mentioning it in any of the three suppression motions he filed in the district court, and it was never mentioned during the hearings. United States v. Summers, 234 Fed. Appx. 315 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).*

The fact the officer waited 8 minutes into a traffic stop to run the driver’s and vehicle license numbers did not make the detention unreasonable, despite the officer’s testimony that he usually drags it out. United States v. Campos, 237 Fed. Appx. 949 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished):

Although in the district court Campos challenged the validity of the initial traffic stop, he no longer argues that the stop of his vehicle for speeding was improper. Rather, Campos argues that the stop was unlawfully prolonged because Officer Flores did not run the records checks until eight minutes into the stop, rendering his detention unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Officer Flores’s actions are plainly permissible under our case law. An officer may request a driver’s license, insurance papers, vehicle registration, run a computer check, issue a citation, and ask about the purpose and itinerary of a driver’s trip. An officer may also undertake similar questioning of the vehicle’s occupants to verify the information provided by the driver. In addition, we have specifically held that records checks need not be initiated prior to an officer’s initial questioning of a vehicle’s occupants.

In United States v. Brigham, [382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc)], the officer did not initiate records checks until eight minutes into the initial stop. Prior to running the records checks, the officer asked the driver for his license, insurance papers, questioned him about his travel plans, and sought to verify the driver’s story with the car’s three passengers. We concluded that the officer’s actions were reasonable.

Campos argues that his case is distinguishable from Brigham because Officer Flores’s testimony indicates that he purposefully engages in delays in initiating records checks so as to extend the amount of time he has for investigation. We reject this argument. “[T]he touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness,” and “[r]easonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Therefore, as long as Officer Flores’s investigative methods were objectively reasonable, his subjective motives are irrelevant. (bracketed material added)