Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01752/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01752-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Collins
Appellant
Clayton Edwards
Appellee
Jimmy Ervin
Appellee

Document Text:

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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 court1

 concluded that the search was constitutional, granting

summary judgment to defendants. This court reviews de novo the grant of summary

Appellate Case: 04-1752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2005 Entry ID: 1877691 
-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

Appellate Case: 04-1752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2005 Entry ID: 1877691 
-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

Appellate Case: 04-1752 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2005 Entry ID: 1877691 
-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.

 _________________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1752 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2005 Entry ID: 1877691