Officer’s reasonable belief defendant was on to their presence was exigent circumstance to enter to prevent destruction of meth

Officers reasonably believed that the defendant finally figured out that he was under surveillance and his arrest was imminent, so the officers could enter without a warrant to prevent flushing of a half pound of meth. State v. Ruggirello, 341 Mont. 88, 2008 MT 8, 176 P.3d 252 (2008):

[*P22] “Exigent circumstances exist if the situation at hand would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent … the destruction of relevant evidence … or some other consequence improperly frustrating law enforcement efforts.” Stone, P18. Here, Detective Basnaw had specific and articulable facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that prompt action was necessary to prevent the destruction of the half-pound of methamphetamine Ruggirello allegedly possessed. Based on information from confidential informants, Detective Basnaw knew that Ruggirello was coming to Montana with methamphetamine, that Ruggirello was aware that police officers were watching him, and that he had asked a third party to help him get rid of the drugs. Detective Basnaw was also given information that the amount of the methamphetamine was one half-pound, and knew that such an amount could be flushed down the toilet in a short period of time. Moreover, Basnaw had witnessed O’Connell and another occupant of the apartment already leave the scene, and their behavior indicated they were aware that police were watching them.

[*P23] These facts, taken together, would lead a reasonable person in Detective Basnaw’s position “to believe that prompt action [was] necessary” to prevent Ruggirello from destroying the methamphetamine he allegedly possessed. Stone, P18. The fact that officers never recovered a full half-pound of methamphetamine, or never witnessed Ruggirello actually destroying drugs, does not alter our conclusion that Basnaw reasonably believed exigent circumstances existed. The question is not whether Basnaw was certain that Ruggirello had a half-pound of methamphetamine and that he was destroying it, but rather whether it was reasonable under the circumstances for Detective Basnaw to believe that Ruggirello had illegal drugs and that prompt action was necessary to prevent him from destroying them. Ruggirello does not challenge on appeal the reliability of the information provided by the confidential informants; therefore, it was indisputably proper for Detective Basnaw to take account of this information in formulating his belief that prompt action was necessary and that exigent circumstances existed.

Comment: This case comes dangerously close to being an officer created exigency. How about they just make their presence known and then use that for an excuse? This leads to swearing matches that the officers will usually win, even when they manipulate the whole thing.

A Sheriff’s deputy’s observations of animals in defendant’s backyard confirmed allegations of mistreatment reported by defendant’s neighbor that brought the officer to defendant’s property. The prevailing harsh weather conditions provided the deputy with a reasonable belief that dogs heard barking in the backyard were in need of immediate aid to prevent their serious injury or death. Likewise, once the officer entered defendant’s backyard and observed the seriously deprived condition of the dogs, he was entitled to respond to the situation by having the dogs immediately seized. Morgan v. State, 289 Ga. App. 209, 656 S.E.2d 857 (2008), prior opinion Morgan v. State, 285 Ga. App. 254, 645 S.E.2d 745 (2007), remanding for further findings.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.