TN: Overpowering smell of a meth lab created exigent circumstances

Police received a call from room 110 of a motel that there was a strong odor of a meth lab, so they came to the motel and found the smell coming from room 109, and it was overpowering, not just strong. Exigent circumstances justified the entry. State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2008):

The hazards posed by an actively operating methamphetamine laboratory are so significant that a number of state and federal courts have determined that the discovery of an actively operating methamphetamine laboratory, in and of itself, creates an exigent circumstance justifying immediate action without the attendant delays that accompany obtaining a search warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Lloyd, 396 F.3d 948, 954 (8th Cir. 2005); Williams v. State, No. CR-06-1752, 2008 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 103, 2008 WL 2223068, at *6 (Ala. Crim. App. May 30, 2008); Barth v. State, 955 So.2d at 1118; State v. White, 175 Ohio App. 3d 302, 2008 Ohio 657, 886 N.E.2d 904, 911 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). Other courts that have recognized the dangers of actively operating methamphetamine laboratories have stopped short of adopting a per se rule. Rather, they have based their finding of exigency on the location of the particular laboratory. United States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d 840, 851 n.6 (6th Cir. 2007); State v. Chapman, 107 Ore. App. 325, 813 P.2d 557, 560-61 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). These courts have focused on whether there were people in the vicinity of the actively operating methamphetamine laboratory, notably neighbors, law enforcement officials, and those manufacturing the methamphetamine. United States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d at 851; State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 273-74 (Iowa 2006); Bishop v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). Regardless of the approach taken, whether a per se rule or a determination based upon the presence of others in the vicinity, the scope of a permissible warrantless search remains limited to the scope of the exigency. United States v. Layman, 244 Fed. Appx. at 211; State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 (Me. 2007); Coffey v. State, 2004 OK CR 30, 99 P.3d 249, 252 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.