Opinion ID: 3002146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal, Venters challenges the district court’s conclusion that Sergeant McElroy and Officer Sweetin’s warrantless entry into his house was justified by exigent circumstances. As Venters sees it, the district court’s determination that the officers had a reasonable belief that the Venters children were in danger finds no support in the record. In fact, Venters continues, the two officers’ decision to enter the house was based on nothing more than “wild speculation” that a medical emergency existed inside, meaning that the officers’ initial entry was illegal, and that the items that were subsequently No. 07-3661 9 recovered were inadmissible as “fruits of the unlawful entry.” Our review is de novo. See United States v. Andrews, 442 F.3d 996, 1000 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2000). The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from making an unreasonable entry into a house, see United States v. Elder, 466 F.3d 1090, 1091 (7th Cir. 2006), and an officer’s warrantless entry into a house is presumed to be unreasonable, see Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559 (2004); United States v. Rivera, 248 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2001). However, the Fourth Amendment does permit an officer to enter a house without a warrant where there is (1) probable cause supporting the entry; and (2) exigent circumstances. See Andrews, 442 F.3d at 1000, Rivera, 248 F.3d at 680. “Exigent circumstances exist when there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant,” United States v. Marshall, 157 F.3d 477, 482 (7th Cir. 1998), such as when an officer must enter a premises “to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury,” see Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403; see also Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 39293 (1978) (“ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1963))); Elder, 466 F.3d at 1090-91 (stating that officers’ warrantless entries were justified to assure safety of individual who called 911). It falls to the government to show that exigent circumstances justified an officer’s warrantless entry. See Andrews, 442 F.3d at 1000. And to 10 No. 07-3661 satisfy that burden, the government must establish that, based on “ ‘the situation from the perspective of the officer[ ] at the scene,’ ” Leaf v. Shelnutt, 400 F.3d 1070, 1082 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Marshall, 157 F.3d at 482), the officer had “ ‘an objectively reasonable basis for believing’ ” that such circumstances existed at the time of the entry, Andrews, 442 F.3d at 1000 (quoting Rivera, 248 F.3d at 680); see also Stuart, 547 U.S. at 404. We agree with the district court that Sergeant McElroy and Officer Sweetin’s warrantless entry into Venters’s house was reasonable. On this record, it is clear that the officers’ entry was supported by probable cause that Venters had committed child neglect. Probable cause exists if police officers “ ‘possess knowledge from reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that [the] suspect has committed, or is committing, a crime.’ ” United States v. Hobbs, 509 F.3d 353, 359-60 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Brown, 366 F.3d 456, 458 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also United States v. Mounts, 248 F.3d 712, 715 (7th Cir. 2001). And under Illinois law, a parent commits child neglect when he or she allows his or her children to live in a house that, “by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity on the part of its parents,” is an unfit place for the children. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 130/1; see also id. 130/2; Illinois v. Melton, 667 N.E.2d 1371, 1379 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). Here, Houseworth reported that Venters was committing child neglect, and nothing about the information she provided rendered her untrustworthy. To the contrary, on two separate occasions she provided detailed allegations that Venters allowed his three children to live in a filthy No. 07-3661 11 and feces-ridden house where he used and manufactured meth. Moreover, Houseworth’s allegations were corroborated by Venters’s wife, Natalie, and by Sweetin’s observations from the porch of Venters’s house, where he saw that the living room was extremely cluttered and that there were feces on the floor. We are thus comfortable stating that the officers had probable cause to believe that Venters had violated Illinois law by allowing his children to live in a house that his neglect and depravity rendered unfit. See 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 130/1,130/2; United States v. Huebner, 356 F.3d 807, 816 (7th Cir. 2004) (concluding that probable cause existed when report of crime was detailed and corroborated by police investigation); United States v. Butler, 74 F.3d 916, 920-21 (9th Cir. 1996) (determining that probable cause existed for warrantless arrest when police officers’ independent observations confirmed report of crime). Moreover, exigent circumstances justified Sergeant McElroy and Officer Sweetin’s entry into Venters’s house. When the officers arrived at the residence, they knew from Houseworth and Natalie that, for the previous three-tofour days, the Venters children were living in a dangerous environment that posed serious threats to their well-being: a decrepit, unsanitary house with little or no adult supervision, and where their father regularly used, and probably made, meth in their presence. It is well documented that the noxious chemicals and toxic fumes created by the use and manufacture of meth pose great dangers to third parties, see United States v. Layne, 324 F.3d 464, 469-71 (6th Cir. 2003); Note, Cooking Up Solutions to a Cooked up Menace: Responses to Methamphetamine in a Federal System, 119 Harv. 12 No. 07-3661 L. Rev. 2508, 2511-12 (2006), Ill. Attorney Gen., Meth Evils, http://www.ag.state.il.us/methnet/ understandingmeth/evils.html (last visited Aug. 18, 2008), and that the chemicals and fumes pose acute dangers to children in particular, see Anne E. Hardwick, Comment, Meth Manufacturing: Arizona Increases Protection for Children, 39 Ariz. St. L.J. 297, 298-306 (2007); U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Information Bulletin: Children at Risk, http://www.usdoj.gov/ ndic/pubs1/1466/ (last visited Aug. 18, 2008). Even more, the fact that Venters regularly exposed his children to the drug created the possibility that the children had ingested the drug some time before the officers arrived on the scene. We are sure that Detective McElroy and Officer Sweetin immediately thought of the effect that meth and its byproducts would have had on Steven when they saw him lying on the couch, at first unresponsive to McElroy’s prolonged “pounding” on the door and “yelling,” and then able only to “raise his head.” As such, it was eminently reasonable for the officers to have feared that Steven’s groggy movements meant that he was sick from meth fumes, was hurt from an accident that occurred while his father was making meth, had ingested the drug, or worse—all scenarios that would have required emergency medical attention. Simply put, there was nothing unreasonable about McElroy and Sweetin’s belief that they needed to enter Venters’s house to provide Steven emergency medical care, see Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403, and once inside, they were right to ensure the safety of his siblings as well, Elder, 466 F.3d at 1090-91 (stating that “considerations” of building’s occupants’ safety made police officers’ brief warrantless entry “prudent”). No. 07-3661 13 Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize the narrowness of our determination that exigent circumstances justified Detective McElroy and Officer Sweetin’s entry into Venters’s house. The situation at the house was not one where McElroy’s and Sweetin’s knocks simply went unanswered; nor was it a situation where the officers saw that the children were healthy and unharmed inside, but yet unsupervised. Instead, it was a situation where McElroy and Sweetin (1) were aware that, for the three-to-four previous days, a drug-addicted father was left alone to “care” for his three young children, and that their house was in a state of extreme filth; (2) knew of credible and corroborated allegations that the father had exposed the children to meth in the past, including the manufacture of the drug, to such an extent that their clothing reeked of the drug; (3) observed that a small child inside the house did not immediately react to their prolonged pounding on the door; and (4) believed that the child’s extremely delayed and lethargic reaction to the pounding suggested a medical problem caused by the dangerous environment in which he lived. And given these unique facts, the officers’ belief that they needed to respond to a medical emergency inside was reasonable, and their entry into the house was prudent. See United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (allowing warrantless entry of officers responding to report of domestic abuse: “This is a case where the police would be harshly criticized had they not investigated and [defendant] was in fact in the apartment. Erring on the side of caution is exactly what we expect of conscientious police officers.”). 14 No. 07-3661 We come, then, to the district court’s determination that Officer Sweetin’s entry into the tool shed was reasonable. Notably, though, Venters abandons any challenge to the court’s conclusion by failing to raise the argument in his brief. See United States v. Dabney, 498 F.3d 455, 460 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Shorter, 54 F.3d 1248, 1256 n.19 (7th Cir. 1995). But even if Venters had raised the point, his challenge would have been unavailing. As discussed, Sweetin had probable cause to believe that Venters had committed child neglect in violation of Illinois law. And in his uncontradicted testimony at the suppression hearing, Sweetin stated that he entered the shed believing that Venters could have been in there, yet was unable to respond to his knocks on the shed door because of illness or injury. This belief was reasonable; the fact that Steven had not seen Venters since the day before suggested that Venters was incapacitated somewhere. Sweetin’s belief was also supported by (1) the fact that Venters was already suffering from extremely ill health from his meth addiction; (2) the chance that Venters could have overdosed on meth or could have taken a tainted version of the drug; and (3) the possibility that Venters could have suffered a life-threatening injury while manufacturing meth in the shed—the area where both Houseworth and Natalie stated that Venters had manufactured the drug in the past. We accordingly agree with the district court that Sweetin’s entry into the shed was reasonable. See Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403; Elder, 466 F.3d at 1090-91. No. 07-3661 15