Court Opinion

ID: 9648501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:24:23.127058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:02.136402
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Believing the majority opinion does not correctly apply the law authorizing a war-rantless search based upon exigent circumstances to the undisputed facts of this case, I respectfully dissent.
Both appellant and the state have briefed and argued this case upon the basis of whether the facts created exigent circumstances and an emergency authorizing a warrantless search. Since I agree, without any question, that they do, my discussion assumes there was a search. Not addressed by any of the parties or the court is the issue of whether this was an emergency intrusion, as opposed to an emergency search as enunciated in the cases of Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971), and Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). In Wyman, the supreme court held that a government intrusion for a purpose other than criminal investigation is simply not a search at all and the fourth amendment is totally inapplicable. In Cady the supreme court overruled a challenge to a warrantless search on the ground that the purpose of the police intrusion was to perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” See: Bacigal, The Emergency Exception to the Fourth Amendment 9 U.Rich.L.Rev. 249 (1975).
Prior to trial a lengthy hearing was held on appellant’s motion to suppress, but before ruling on the motion, the trial judge died. When this case was called for trial, appellant plead not guilty and entered into a lengthy written stipulation of evidence consisting of some six typewritten legal sized pages, agreeing that that evidence, along with the evidence heard by the court *780on the motion to suppress, would be the evidence “and provide the factual basis for the court’s determination of the guilt or innocence of the Defendant.”
I have difficulty understanding the majority’s statement of the evidence. My complaint is that the majority gives undue consideration to minor details and inconsistencies in the live testimony developed at the motion to suppress and apparently never considers the written stipulation of evidence introduced at trial. However, in my opinion, appellant closed the door to any argument over the facts as to whether an emergency existed when he personally signed, along with his attorney, the stipulation of evidence agreeing “that if the below-named witnesses were called, sworn and questioned, that they would give testimony in this case as set out below.” For this reason I am content to rely upon and “find” the evidence from this written stipulation, supplemented, where appropriate, by the suppression hearing testimony not reflected in the written stipulation. Additionally, appellant did not testify at either the motion to suppress or trial. Therefore, I find no dispute in the basic facts which form the basis for a finding of exigent circumstances.
Since the lawfulness of the search depends upon whether there were exigent circumstances or an emergency authorizing a warrantless entry into the apartment, the facts before the trial court must be set out in some detail. This written stipulation of evidence shows that Houston Police Officer Shirley was dispatched to a large apartment complex at 2800 West T.C. Jester in the city of Houston regarding complaints of “a strong chemical odor that was making them physically ill;” that he personally inspected the area and determined “a strong chemical aroma of ether” was coming from apartment 69.
The stipulation further shows that Shirley contacted Captain Key of the Houston Fire Department “who was alarmed by Shirley’s report;” that he returned to apartment 69 and “observed a gaseous cloud emanating from the patio door of apartment 69 and smelled a very strong odor of ether” with which he was familiar and which he knew to be “extremely flam-able” [sic], and being “concerned for the safety of the inhabitants of the entire apartment complex,” (emphasis added) he knocked on the door and after approximately ten minutes appellant opened the door; that when the door was opened he “detected an even stronger odor of flamable [sic] ether inside the apartment 69;” and that he immediately entered and opened windows “to afford maximum emergency ventilation.” Once inside Officer Shirley, who had previously worked in the narcotics division and had observed clandestine laboratories for the manufacture of methamphetamine, “immediately recognized in plain view a collection of chemical apparati, which, combined with the ether odor Shirley knew was an essential ingredient in the manufacture of many narcotic drugs, led Shirley to believe that amphetamine [sic] was being manufactured.” The stipulation further recites that the only two occupants of the apartment, appellant and a female, were placed under arrest and a search and arrest warrant was obtained.
As a result of the search under the warrant “18 pieces of glassware including flasks, beakers, and jars, methylamine (which Shirley knew was a raw material necessary to the manufacture of methamphetamine), thermometers, funnels, heating and stirring devices, clamps, tubing and liquid powder substances” were recovered from the apartment. The stipulation further recites that in Shirley’s opinion “the manner in which the various glass instruments and beakers and flasks were assembled on various instruments of heating and mixing were designed for the manufacture of methamphetamine.” In addition, Shirley recovered from the apartment “a series of typed and handwritten notes containing chemical formulae.” It was stipulated that the chemist would testify that these notes were a “step by step guide for the manufacture of methamphetamine, which, if followed, would result in the successful manufacture of methamphetamine, and which *781would require the use of the various items of chemical supply (glassware, tubing and heating mantles) and chemical substances (methalymine [sic], lye) found in apartment 69.” The stipulation further provided that the chemist recovered liquid methamphetamine, “an intermediate stage in the manufacture of methamphetamine” and powdered methamphetamine from the apartment.
Appellant at trial introduced as “Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1” a transcript of the testimony adduced on his motion to suppress. From this transcript we additionally learn that the “reportees,” occupants of nearby apartment 76, first called the fire department at 3:59 a.m. on the morning in question. They complained of an odor making them sick; that they had smelled the same odor for several days; that the fire department responded and Fire Captain Key determined the apartment complex was “total electricity” and did not have gas service; that he detected a “faint odor of ether” but could not find the source and returned to his fire station. The evidence further shows that the reportees then called the police department and Officer Shirley arrived at the apartment complex at approximately 4:20 a.m. and that after investigating the source of the odor, he called Captain Key.
It is unclear from Key’s testimony as to his instructions to Shirley regarding entering the apartment, however, appellant introduced into evidence a transcription of tape recorded conversations between Key and his dispatcher (made at 5:22 a.m., on the morning in question when Key had returned to the apartment complex) in which Key informed his dispatcher “I told them that it was a hazard,” and acknowledged to his dispatcher that “it’s (the smell of ether) strong.” Finally, two additional facts for consideration are: (1) Shirley testified that he was just about to kick the door in when appellant answered his knock; (2) in addition to being extremely flammable, the evidence showed ether “puts you to sleep.”
The law is clear and the majority opinion recognizes that an objective standard of reasonableness must be used in assessing an officer’s belief that a warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances. Root v. Gauper, 438 F.2d 361 (8th Cir.1971), citing with approval and applying this standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) to a search under the emergency doctrine. The court of criminal appeals has likewise recognized this standard. Bray v. State, 597 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
The fallacy of the majority opinion lies in the fact that while it recognizes the “objective standard” test, it refuses to apply it. In fact, the majority opinion states: “Shirley, in response to a leading question by the state, testified that his primary concern was for the safety of the people inside apartment 69 and the residents of all the apartments.” First of all, the stipulated evidence was that Shirley was “concerned for the safety of the inhabitants of the entire apartment complex.” Second, if an objective test is applied, it wouldn’t matter what his concern was, primary or otherwise, for the reason this is subjective, not objective. As the court said in United States v. Callabrass, 607 F.2d 559 (2nd Cir.1979): “We do not see, however, how Cassidy’s subjective intention controls the question of whether there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry.” The Supreme Court, last Term, came to a similar conclusion as the D.C. Circuit did in Callabrass when deciding the “public safety” exception to Miranda warnings, The Court stated:
In a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception which we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the arresting officer. Undoubtedly, most police officers, if placed in Officer Kraft’s position, would act out of a host of different, *782instinctive, and largely unverifiable motives — their own safety, the safety of others, and perhaps as well the desire to obtain incriminating evidence from the suspect.
New York v. Quarles, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2630, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984).
However, to compound the error further, the majority opinion then lists fifteen “actions [which] contradict his alleged motives.” Not a single one of these “actions”, except the first part of the first one (Shirley smelled ether) has anything to do with whether an emergency existed. A brief comment on each of these “actions” used by the majority to defeat a finding of emergency is appropriate.
In the first numbered “action”, the majority points out that Shirley suspected a methamphetamine laboratory. This exact fact has been held to have no bearing on the issue of exigent circumstances. Callabrass, 607 F.2d at 559. Likewise it should have no bearing in this case.
In actions numbered (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) the majority points out that Shirley took time to contact the district attorneys office and the Houston Fire Department, the advice he received from each and Shirley’s subjective intent. None of these “facts” have any bearing upon whether an emergency existed. The majority apparently assumes Shirley determined an emergency existed when he arrived on the scene. The facts do not support this conclusion. It was only after appellant opened the door in response to his knocking that it was finally determined — at that moment — that an emergency existed. Appellant stipulated the facts to be that when he opened the door, Shirley “detected an even stronger odor of flamable [sic] ether inside the apartment 69” and that Shirley entered “to afford maximum ventilation” by opening the windows.
In actions (7), (8), and (15) the majority points out that the officer knocked on the door for some ten minutes, failed to get a pass key and immediately enter or “respond immediately”. The majority places undue weight upon the time element. In Callabrass, 607 F.2d at 559, the fact that the officers waited some four hours for the arrival of an experienced narcotics officer did not detract from a finding that exigent circumstances existed. Similarly in United States v. Brock, 667 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir.1982), there had been visual surveillance of a suspected mobile methamphetamine lab “throughout the afternoon”. Later, after certain unusual activity was observed, another officer arrived and following a discussion between the officers for ten minutes, the officers decided exigent circumstances existed and ordered the occupants out and searched. The court of appeals, en banc, found an emergency existed and the United States Supreme Court denied certio-rari. And finally in United States v. Williams, 630 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1980), a finding of exigency to search a motor home five hours after the arrests were made was justified, based on the need of agents to enter to check on the explosiveness of the chemicals.
In actions numbered (9) and (10) the majority points out that the officer “failed to determine” if appellant or anyone else in the apartment was in need of assistance before entering. The majority opinion is in error in looking only to the “needs” of appellant and his companion to find exigent circumstances. As pointed out above appellant agreed in his stipulation that the officer was “concerned for the safety of the inhabitants of the entire apartment complex.”
Finally in actions (11), (12), (13) and (14) the majority points to lack of evidence that anyone in the apartment complex was in need of assistance and the failure of the officer to take certain actions. These issues are totally immaterial. It was incumbent upon the officer “to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from these facts, reasonably warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action was appropriate.” The trial judge had to weigh these facts against an objective standard. We must do the same.
*783Ether is an extremely volatile, highly flammable liquid derived from the distillation of ethyl alcohol with sulphuric acid.Indeed, the Grecian root word from which “ether” is derived means “to ignite,” “to blaze.” Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary. In judging the articulable facts pointed out by the officer, neither the trial court nor this court can close its eyes to reality. The test relied upon by the majority commands that we apply the “man of reasonable caution” test. As Chief Justice Burger of the Supreme Court stated in an opinion authored by him while sitting on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:
The appraisal of exigent circumstances surrounding .... forcible entries without a search warrant presents difficult and delicate problems. These cases do not arise in the calm which pervades a courtroom or library. They are rarely if ever seen by courts except in eases where criminal activity has been uncovered by the challenged police actions. They are not matters resolved by meditation and reflection of the participants. The events are likely to be emotion-charged, filled with tension, and frequently attended by grave risks. Neither the Constitution, statutes or judicial decisions have made the home inviolable in an absolute sense. Collectively they have surrounded the home with great protection but protection which is qualified by the needs of ordered liberty in a civilized society. Breaking into a home by force is not illegal if it is reasonable in the circumstances.... The need to preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency ... When policemen, firemen or other public officers are confronted with evidence which would lead a prudent and reasonable official to see a need to act to protect life or property, they are authorized to act on that information, even if ultimately found erroneous.
Wayne v. U.S., 318 F.2d 205 (D.C. Circuit 1963).
In view of the fact that while this case has been pending in this court an illegal methamphetamine laboratory has been blamed for an explosion and fire causing in excess of one million dollars damage to a large apartment complex not far removed in distance from the apartment complex in question, I cannot agree with the statement in the majority opinion that “we cannot, even in retrospect, reasonably conclude any other residents were in immediate danger.” While this is not material under the test, the answer to this statement of the majority is that Officer Shirley’s action in aeriating the appellant’s apartment may well have prevented an explosion or fire. This court is simply not in a position to speculate as to what might have happened or that no emergency existed. Only a divine being could know what the eventual outcome would have been.
In short, I consider the question presented to be a simple one. The burden is on the state to prove that a warrantless entry fell within the emergency doctrine. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. at 191 (1948); Janicek v. State, 634 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). There can be no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to enter against the invasion the entry entails. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). When we apply these rules of law to the undisputed and stipulated facts, I conclude that an emergency existed. Thus, the entry was authorized.
The fact that the officer may have suspected the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine is, in my opinion, totally immaterial. What is material is whether the concentration of a combustible substance was such as to create an emergency in a large apartment complex. Likewise, the failure of the fire captain to make a more thorough investigation and to determine for himself whether, he should have entered is inconsequential. Appellant’s argument taken to its logical conclusion would result in an incapacity to find an emergency if there was a difference of opinion among those present at the scene. After all, Key *784admitted that given the facts stipulated to by appellant, an emergency existed.
The material facts are that it was approximately 4:30 a.m.; that the concentration of ether was intense enough to make visible a gaseous cloud coming from the patio door of the apartment; that the officer knew ether to be extremely flammable and that this activity was occurring in a large apartment complex in the city of Houston. When his knock on the door was answered he found the concentration of ether even stronger. He entered to aeriate the apartment. Whether an exigent entry is authorized is determined by the articula-ble facts at the time of entry is authorized rather than being affected by what is ultimately found inside.
I would hold that upon the facts then in possession of the police officer, he was justified in entering without warrant to ventilate the apartment. Once inside he wa& not required to close his eyes to those items he recognized as being used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. He was therefore authorized to use those facts as a basis for securing a search warrant to search the apartment and seize the evidence used to convict appellant.
There can be no question that the United States Supreme Court explicitly recognizes that exigent circumstances may in some instances justify and require a warrantless official intrusion into privacy. Surely it was precisely toward providing for such circumstances as are present here that the court formulated the emergency doctrine. If not, it is difficult, indeed, to think of a case in which it ever could be applied.
I respectfully dissent.
Paul PRESSLER, CANNON and DRAUGHN, JJ., concur.