Don't Leave The Meth Lab Door Open, Or At Least Hide The Gun

UNITED STATES v. ATCHLEY, USCA-6 No. 04-6521, U.S.App. LEXIS 1394, appeal from USDC-TNED, before Circuit Judges Martin, Norris, and Gibbons, opinion by Martin, filed 23 Jan 2007.

LONG STORY SHORT: After defendant's lawful arrest and upon seeing a handgun in plain view through the open door to defendant's motel room, combined with reasonable suspicion that defendant had been cooking meth in his room, officers' protective sweep was justified, and incriminating objects in plain view would not be suppressed. Binding in KY, MI, OH, TN.

FACTS: Officers of the Chattanooga Police Department responded to an extended stay motel after an anonymous citizen tipped them that three or four people with a particularly described Chevy pickup were manufacturing methamphetamine in room 139. The officers saw a truck matching the description parked 20 feet from room 139, and four people standing near it. Officer Cobb asked Defendant for ID, and he handed over his driver license, but denied that he rented the room and that they were only repairing the truck. Officer Engle took Defendant's license to the motel office and determined that Defendant had rented room 139, and related the same to Defendant, who became nervous enough that Officer Cobb decided to handcuff him for safety reasons, but without intention to arrest him.

When the first cuff went on, Defendant started fighting and tried to take an officer's sidearm, but the officers were able to gain control and cuff him, informing him that now he was under arrest for his violent behavior. Since one of Defendant's colleagues had also attacked them, the officers decided to conduct a protective sweep of room 139 to check for any others. Through the open door, officers could see a handgun and smell a chemical associated with meth manufacture. Upon entry, officers observed meth lab paraphernalia and a police radio scanner. Based on the items in plain view and their knowledge of the dangerous nature of meth labs, the officers decided that exigent circumstances required a further search of closed containers in the room for hazards, and in so doing, they found more evidence of meth making, plus another handgun. A detective arrived and, after Mirandizing him, asked Defendant for consent to search the room, which he gave in writing, and that search yielded yet more meth evidence, including chemicals mixed and ready for cooking. Defendant later testified that he only consented because he was in pain and was promised medical attention and water in return for consent; the detective denied any coercion.

PROCEDURE: The United States indicted Defendant for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of equipment and chemicals for making meth, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug crime, and possession of firearms while a convicted felon. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence from the motel room on grounds that the initial handcuffing constituted an arrest without probable cause, that a handgun in plain view was not per se contraband and did not justify a protective sweep, that no exigent circumstances justified the immediate warrantless search of his motel room, and that his consent to search was coerced and invalid.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee ruled that the officers had reasonable suspicion of crime in progress from the initial tip and Defendant's untruthfulness; that the initial handcuffing was not an arrest but a safety measure; that the subsequent arrest was lawful; that the protective sweep was valid; and that even though the detective's testimony was more credible and no coercion existed, that exigent circumstances from the danger of meth labs justified the post-sweep search anyway. MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED. Defendant went to jury trial and was convicted as charged, receiving 320 months. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

DECISION: The anonymous tip that started the investigation did not amount to reasonable suspicion for Terry purposes all by itself, even though officers were able to confirm it as far as it went when they got to the scene. But once there, the officers were within bounds to strike up a conversation and ask for ID, since they did not convey any impression that the subjects had to do as told. That led to Defendant's lying and acting nervous, which in turn justified handcuffing him for safety reasons without exceeding Terry limits, and when he started fighting, formal arrest was justified. Since the motel room was 20 feet away and not within Defendant's immediate control, it was not subject to search incident to arrest. However, given Defendant's and his colleagues' violent behavior, officers had enough articulable officer safety concerns to conduct a protective sweep of the room for other dangerous persons.

Once in the room, officers could seize the handgun temporarily as a danger to their safety, and since a plain view of the meth-related items revealed their incriminating character, no warrant was necessary to seize them. Though the search of closed containers exceeded the nature of a protective sweep because they were too small to contain a person, exigency did allow this search, because by then it was clear that meth lab chemicals were present, and their flammable and toxic nature, coupled with their location in a motel with other people, constituted an immediate danger to public safety. The Sixth Circuit cautioned not to read into this holding a per se rule that meth lab chemicals equal automatic exigent circumstances; a meth lab in an isolated building out in the country might be another story. Given the exigency, there was no need to address the issue of consent. DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION AFFIRMED; convictions and sentences AFFIRMED in all respects.

EDITORIAL: These guys went charging into a meth lab without protective gear? Holy frijoles! Meth labs are the very definitions of contaminated hazmat sites. Remember the "rule of thumb" for hazmat--once you're far enough away from the scene that your thumb blocks your view of it, you can stop running. The instant I think there's meth around, I make like a frightened shepherd and get the flock outta there! But this time, the intrepid officers made out just fine, and they might well have saved lives and property. Good on ya, mates.

The opinion notes that before the feds could indict him, the bad guy here made bond on his state charges, then promptly jumped bail and murdered a bondsman in Alabama, eventually getting rearrested in Missouri. You just never know what some people are going to do when pressed.

By the way, I agree with the ruling, and will make sure to get a warrant before sending the hazmat guys in.