Lawrence E. Lupien v. Harold W. Clarke

1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-1752
___________
Jerry Collins, *
*
Plaintiff/Appellant, *
*
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Eastern
* District of Arkansas
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Clayton Edwards, et al. *
*
Defendants/Appellees. *
*
___________
Submitted: December 16, 2004
Filed: March 11, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Collins sued Clayton Edwards and Jimmy Ervin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging Fourth Amendment violations after they searched his property without a
warrant. The district court 1 concluded that the search was constitutional, granting
summary judgment to defendants. This court reviews de novo the grant of summary

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
judgment, viewing the facts most favorably to Collins. Rose - Matson v. NME
Hospitals, Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 1997). Jurisdiction being proper under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Jerry Collins owned two parcels of land adjacent to each other with a common
entry road. One parcel, at 102 Cindy Lane, contained two buildings – a residence and
a detached three-sided outbuilding. Before the search at issue, Jerry Collins moved
out of the residence at 102 Cindy Lane, stored some items in the outbuilding, and left
the state. He intended to offer 102 Cindy Lane for rent.
The second parcel, at 114 Cindy Lane, was the residence of Collins's son,
Shawn Collins, and Dianna L. Sweet. This residence is about 300 feet behind the one
at 102 Cindy Lane. The outbuilding is about 75 feet to the "right" of the second
residence, and thus also about 300 feet behind the first residence.
On February 22, 2002, the White County Sheriff Office received information
that Shawn Collins and Sweet (who was on probation) were manufacturing
methamphetamine at 114 Cindy Lane in the presence of children. Two officers went
to check on the children's welfare. Arriving, they smelled the "strong odor of a meth
lab." Around the same time, Sweet's probation officer arrived. The probation officer
directed the officers to search the residence, believing this was authorized by Sweet's
probation agreement. Officers found an operational meth lab and a handgun in trash
cans at the front of the residence, and ammonia tanks at one corner of the residence.
Various meth lab components were found at the residence.
Defendant Edwards then arrived at the scene, and learned what had been found.
After all others left the scene, he continued to search the area around the 114 Cindy
Lane residence and take pictures. Because the outbuilding "looked like" Shawn
Collins and Sweet would control it, Edwards entered the outbuilding. Within the
outbuilding, one area was completely enclosed, except that at least one wall had an

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
opening of about 18 inches between the top of the wall and the ceiling. Using a
ladder in the outbuilding, he looked into the opening and saw components of what
appeared to be a meth lab. Edwards entered and searched the enclosure, after cutting
an opening with a knife. Edwards and Ervin then removed meth lab components.
A few days after the search, Jerry Collins returned, allegedly discovering that
items, other than those removed by Edwards and Ervin, were missing from the
outbuilding. He then sued claiming that the officers unconstitutionally searched his
property, and allowed an unknown third party to enter the outbuilding and steal
various items.
Among his arguments to this court, Collins asserts that the search of the
outbuilding violated the Fourth Amendment. A search without a warrant is legal
when justified by both probable cause and exigent circumstances. See United States
v. Walsh, 299 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 2002). Probable cause exists when, given the
totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person could believe there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a particular
place. See Kleinholz v. United States, 339 F.3d 674, 676 (8th Cir. 2003). Exigent
circumstances exist when there are emergency situations where there is a legitimate
concern for the safety of individuals. See United States v. Janis, 387 F.3d 682, 687
(8th Cir. 2004).
In this case, probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the search of
the outbuilding. The smell of methamphetamine and the discovery of meth lab
components were sufficient to establish the probable cause and exigent circumstances
needed to justify a warrantless search. See United States v. Caves, 890 F.2d 87, 90-91
(8th Cir. 1989); Walsh, 299 F.3d at 734. "The potential hazards of methamphetamine
manufacture are well documented, and numerous cases have upheld limited
warrantless searches by police officers who had probable cause to believe they had
uncovered an on-going methamphetamine manufacturing operation." Id. It was

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
reasonable for Edwards and Ervin to search the outbuilding because it was near the
meth-making residence. The outbuilding showed signs of being used, and Edward's
belief that the users were Shawn Collins and Sweet was reasonable since Collins's
vacant house was 300 feet away. Once in the outbuilding, Edwards acted reasonably
in cutting an opening into the enclosed area after looking over the wall and seeing
materials used in drug production. The search of the outbuilding did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
Collins also contends that material facts are in dispute about the exigent
circumstances surrounding the search of the outbuilding. Specifically, Collins asserts
controverted facts as to: (1) whether Shawn Collins and Sweet had control of the
outbuilding; (2) whether Edwards believed the outbuilding was part of the
probationary search; (3) whether Edwards knew the property belonged to Jerry
Collins; and (4) whether there was a chemical odor emanating from the outbuilding.
As for control of the outbuilding, the proximity to the meth-making residence
makes immaterial who also had control of the outbuilding. The officers' belief that
they were searching pursuant to the probation agreement is irrelevant if the facts
otherwise support a constitutionally valid search. Edwards' inconsistent statements
about the ownership of the outbuilding do not matter, because the key is the
probability of use by a nearby resident, as opposed to an absentee landlord. While
the meth odor supports probable cause and exigent circumstances, the fact that the
odor did not emanate from the outbuilding is immaterial because the outbuilding
appeared to be used by those in the adjacent residence.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
_________________________________

-- 4 of 4 --