{"id":3544,"date":"2010-06-06T12:55:20","date_gmt":"2009-11-18T00:16:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-17T07:19:24","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3544","title":{"rendered":"SD: Smell of a meth lab permitted emergency entry to a house"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The smell of a meth lab coming from a house justified an emergency entry into the home to look for people who could have been overcome from the fumes. A gas company worker was investigating reports of smells in the neighborhood. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sdjudicial.com\/opinions\/downloads\/y2009\/24853.pdf\">State v. Deneui<\/a>, 2009 SD 99, 775 N.W.2d 221 (2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In a case of first impression, we are confronted with the question whether the community caretaker doctrine, which we previously applied to an automobile search, should also be applied to a home search. After smelling ammonia fumes outside a home, police officers entered without a warrant to see if anyone inside needed assistance. While in the home, they saw evidence of a methamphetamine lab in plain view, which later formed the basis for obtaining a search warrant. Defendant homeowner sought unsuccessfully to suppress the evidence seized in his house.  &#8230; On appeal, we conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the officers were justified in their community caretaking function in entering the home to make sure no one had succumbed to noxious fumes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Three tipsters saw video of defendant and identified him, and that was basis of knowledge. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2009\/2009-ohio-6018.pdf\">State v. Richardson<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6018, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5051 (2d Dist. November 13, 2009).<\/p>\n<p>Entry into defendant\u2019s home was not justified by any emergency theory, so the seizure of the rifle in this gun case was unreasonable. However, the handgun was not an issue on the appeal, that supports the conviction, so the unlawful search was unreasonable. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/memoranda\/2009\/11\/13\/08-10511.pdf\">United States v. Johnson<\/a>, 357 Fed. Appx. 29 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3544\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}