Opinion ID: 165798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: May 15, 2001, Search of the South Xanthus House

Text: 24 On May 15, 2001, police officers received a report of a possible methamphetamine lab at the South Xanthus house. Two officers investigated and detected a strong chemical odor ... only associated with the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Affidavit for Search Warrant (5/15/2001). A few hours later, on the basis of an affidavit by one of the officers, an Oklahoma state judge issued a warrant to search the house. The officer-affiant had been certified by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration in the recognition of methamphetamine odors. Police officers executed the warrant the same day, discovering methamphetamine-manufacturing materials and other evidence of the conspiracy. 25 Mook contends that this search was not supported by probable cause, because humans cannot reliably identify odors. But we have repeatedly held in vehicle-search cases that [a]n officer's detection of the smell of drugs, such as methamphetamine ... can be an independently sufficient basis for probable cause. United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir.2000) (collecting cases). We see no reason to limit these cases to vehicle searches: the scent of methamphetamine, wherever detected, gives qualified officers probable cause to search for methamphetamine and evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing. 26 Mook also complains that the affidavit for the warrant falsely states that Mary Gaye Fox, named as the defendant in the affidavit, had prior drug-related convictions. Even if the statement was false, however, the odor evidence clearly established probable cause, so the warrant was nevertheless valid. See Mason v. United States, 719 F.2d 1485, 1488 (10th Cir.1983).