Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03809/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03809-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Timothy John Vaudt
Appellant

Document Text:

1

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 860(a).

2

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3809

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Timothy John Vaudt, also known *

as Fudd, * PUBLISHED

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 22, 2005

Filed: July 5, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy John Vaudt was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute

fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine within a protected location1

 and

possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.2

 He was sentenced to a

term of 120 months of imprisonment for the controlled substance violation and a

Appellate Case: 04-3809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923846
3

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa, adopting the Report and Recommendation of Paul

A. Zoss, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

consecutive 60-month term for the gun crime. On appeal, he argues the district court3

erred in failing to suppress evidence found during a search of his residence. We

affirm.

BACKGROUND

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on August 21, 2002, Calhoun County Sheriff

William A. Davis was patrolling a section of Rinard, Iowa. As he drove by Vaudt’s

house, he noticed two exhaust fans in a basement window, and thought he saw a thick

white smoke coming out of the fans. Davis claimed that the smoke had a faint

chemical odor that he could smell when the wind blew the smoke to his position

across the street.

A registration check on a gray Buick Skylark in Vaudt’s driveway revealed that

the car’s owner was Eugene Schneider, a person whose residence had recently been

linked to the manufacture of methamphetamine. According to Davis, another

county’s sheriff’s office informed him that Vaudt was letting people use his house to

manufacture methamphetamine.

Davis called a deputy to assist him at Vaudt’s residence. While waiting for the

deputy, Davis saw a woman come out of Vaudt’s house carrying a yellow sack. She

put the sack in the Skylark, and then went back inside. When the deputy arrived

shortly thereafter, he and Davis went to Vaudt’s door to investigate the possible

manufacture of methamphetamine. Teresa Schneider, the same woman who Davis

had seen with the yellow sack, answered the door. She first claimed she had just

woken up, but then admitted she had put the yellow sack in the Skylark earlier in the

Appellate Case: 04-3809 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923846
-3-

morning. She told Davis that she saw him on patrol and told Vaudt, which caused

Vaudt to flee the house.

Davis asked Schneider if she would show them what was in the sack, and she

eventually retrieved it from the car. In the sack was a plastic container which

contained residue from making methamphetamine. She told the officers she was

supposed to get rid of the residue. She gave the officers permission to search the car,

which contained a number of materials that are commonly used in the manufacture

of methamphetamine. Schneider then admitted to Davis that she was thinking about

stealing some anhydrous ammonia, a common ingredient in the manufacture of

methamphetamine, to make some money. When Schneider went back into the house

to get her cigarettes and a drink of water, she was followed in by the deputy, who

thought he smelled anhydrous ammonia inside the house.

Based on this information, a magistrate issued a search warrant for Vaudt’s

residence. Although no methamphetamine manufacturing was underway at the time

the warrant was executed, officers found firearms and items related to the

manufacture of methamphetamine. Vaudt was subsequently charged with the above

offenses, and moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the search on the basis

that the affidavit in support of the search warrant and its attached exhibits did not

establish probable cause. The district court denied the motion, and Vaudt went to

trial. He was convicted and sentenced to a cumulative term of 180 months of

imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of supervised release. This appeal

followed.

ANALYSIS

Vaudt’s sole claim on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that

the affidavit and its attachments supported a finding of probable cause. The

government suggests that this is a mixed question of law and fact, that Vaudt did not

Appellate Case: 04-3809 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923846
-4-

file objections to the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on this basis, and thus

we review only for plain error. It is true that if Vaudt sought to challenge any factual

findings on appeal, we would review them for plain error. See United States v.

Looking, 156 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 1998). That, however, is not his claim. Rather,

he simply states that the undisputed information in the affidavit did not rise to the

legal standard necessary to establish probable cause. Thus, the issue before us is

strictly a legal one. Even where a defendant fails to object to a Report and

Recommendation, this court reviews “de novo the ultimate question of whether the

Fourth Amendment has been violated.” United States v. Collins, 321 F.3d 691, 694

(8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.

1999)); accord United States v. Leppert, 408 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 2005)

(reviewing de novo the issue of whether a warrant was supported by probable cause

where no facts were in dispute).

Before a warrant may issue, the issuing magistrate must be convinced that,

based on the totality of circumstances, there is a “fair probability” that evidence of a

crime or contraband will be found in the place to be searched. Illinois v. Gates, 462

U.S. 213, 238 (1983). “Additionally, ‘probable cause may be established by the

observations of trained law enforcement officers or by circumstantial evidence.’”

United States v. Terry, 305 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v.

Searcy, 181 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 1999)).

The essence of Vaudt’s claim is that neither the methamphetamine residue, nor

the chemical odors emanating from his house, nor the items seized from the Skylark

parked in his driveway, nor the officers’ conversation with Schneider, did anything

to tie his residence to the manufacture of methamphetamine. We disagree. The

issuing magistrate knew that, according to an officer with twenty years of experience

and four years dedicated to methamphetamine lab investigations: (1) a Buick Skylark

in Vaudt’s driveway belonged to someone associated with methamphetamine

manufacture; (2) Vaudt was potentially allowing people to cook methamphetamine

Appellate Case: 04-3809 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923846
-5-

in his house; (3) at approximately 6:30 a.m. Schneider exited Vaudt’s house and

placed methamphetamine residue in the Skylark; (4) when questioned by police

around 7:00 a.m., Schneider told police she was supposed to get rid of the residue;

(5) items in the Skylark were of the type typically used to manufacture

methamphetamine; and (6) Vaudt fled his residence when he was told the police were

outside. This was more than sufficient information to support the view that there was

a fair probability that Vaudt’s house was associated with methamphetamine

manufacture and may contain contraband or evidence of criminal activity.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3809 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923846