Opinion ID: 769576
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Searches by Officers Yergler and Wasinger

Text: 34 i. Reasonable Belief That an Emergency is at Hand and That Aid is Immediately Necessary 35 Officer Yergler was faced with a terrible, sickening chemical odor coming from Apartment 3, which he could smell asmuch as 20 feet away from the apartment. Officer Yergler, as well as the firefighters who summoned him, believed that the fumes might be associated with methamphetamine production. Officer Yergler knew from his training that methamphetamine labs are volatile and therefore reasonably feared that Apartment 3 could explode at any moment. See United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1014 (9th Cir. 1983) (recognizing that methamphetamine labs create a risk of explosion). Officer Yergler also reasonably believed that lives were in danger if an explosion occurred. This fear was heightened by the fact that the odor was coming from an apartment building, possibly containing many people. Cf. United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a potential explosion within an apartment increases the likelihood of finding exigent circumstances). Moreover, Officer Yergler testified that he witnessed several children around the apartment building. One of the apartment building's tenants had left her apartment fearing harm to herself or to her infant child. Given all of these circumstances, Officer Yergler reasonably believed that an emergency was at hand and that his assistance was immediately necessary for the protection of life. 36 ii. Not Primarily Motivated by the Desire to Collect Evidence 37 Officer Yergler testified that before the first search he was not sure whether the substance he smelled was caused by methamphetamine production, but he testified that given the strong noxious chemical odor and the fact that .. . six apartments [were] there with another apartment building right across, [he] didn't want to take the chance.  The district court found that Officer Yergler was very credible  and there was no indication . . . [that he was] trying to make up a story afterwards to justify what he did. We review a district court's credibility determination for clear error. See United States v. Hanley, 190 F.3d 1017, 1031 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Oba, 978 F.2d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 1992)). Upon examining the record, we conclude the district court's credibility determination is not clearly erroneous. Officer Yergler's actions after the search provide further evidence that he was primarily motivated by his concern for the safety of the apartment building's occupants. Once he had secured the premises, Officer Yergler ordered the evacuation of the building and requested the tenants to turn off any open flames. 38 iii. Reasonable Basis for Associating the Place Searched with the Emergency 39 Officer Yergler testified that he had identified Apartment 3 as the source of the chemical odor. He had already investigated Apartment 6 and did not find the odor's source. Moreover, the odor was stronger in front of Apartment 3 than in front of any other apartment. These facts show that Officer Yergler had a reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to believe that the noxious chemical odor was coming from Apartment 3. See Mitchell, 347 N.E.2d at 609. Furthermore, Officer Yergler did not examine Apartment 3 more thoroughly than was necessary to search for a methamphetamine lab. He simply walked through the rooms and looked at items in plain view. See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393 (the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities). 9 Thus, we agree with the district court that the officers' searches of Apartment 3 were legal. 40