Court Opinion

ID: 9546785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:35:16.779642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:51.121129
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
specially concurring.
Although I agree with the lead opinion that the flushing sound heard by the investigating officers provided exigent circumstances justifying the subsequent warrantless search, I write separately to emphasize what I see as the greater exigency posed by the operation of this type of clandestine drug laboratory in a residential neighborhood.
“Exigent circumstances” include situations requiring swift action to avoid an imminent danger to life or serious damage to property. State v. Girard, 276 Or 511, 514 n 2, 555 P2d 445 (1976). The hazards to life and property posed by the operation of a methamphetamine laboratory were well known to the investigating officers in this case and have been extensively documented by other courts. See, e.g., People v. Messina, 165 Cal App 3d 937, 942-45, 212 Cal Rptr 75 (2d Dist 1985). Officer Bechard testified that the primary dangers from an operating methamphetamine laboratory are fire, explosion and the emission of extremely toxic fumes. He noted that these laboratories are often operated in an unscientific and unsanitary manner that contributes to the danger of fire or explosion. He stated that the effect of such a fire or explosion in the subject house “would probably be pretty devastating.” These observations are in accord with those in Messina:
“[I]t is abundantly clear that the types of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamines are extremely hazardous to health. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Clandestine *477Laboratory Guide indicates at pages 110-115 that the common chemicals used to synthesize methamphetamine include methylamine, mercuric chloride, and in some circumstances, metallic sodium, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen. These chemicals can be highly dangerous and their presence in a residential neighborhood is absolutely beyond the pale of suggestion that they are safe.” 165 Cal App 3d at 943.
That opinion contains an extensive review of National Fire Protection Association standards relating to the listed chemicals and concludes that “the chemicals normally used in the manufacture of methamphetamine are quite dangerous. * * * Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the presence of these chemicals in an unprofessional laboratory in a residential area constitutes an emergency which requires immediate and proper response by law enforcement.” 165 Cal App 3d at 944.
The investigating officers in this case were confronted with an emergency situation requiring swift action to protect life and property. They were familiar with the smell associated with methamphetamine production and testified that, in their experience, only an operating methamphetamine laboratory could generate that smell powerfully enough to permeate an entire neighborhood. When the front door was opened by defendant, the smell of methamphetamine was overpowering. Bechard stated that “the odor dashed out like opening up an oven door when you’re baking cookies * * Those observations not only suggested the presence of an illicit laboratory but also indicated that the laboratory was in operation, posing an imminent danger to persons and property in the surrounding neighborhood and to the occupants of the building concerned.
I would hold that the officers, independent of any flushing sounds heard from within the house, were confronted with exigent circumstances justifying immediate action to neutralize the threat posed by the operation of a clandestine drug laboratory and that evidence seized or observed under these facts is admissible. I do not believe that State v. Bride-well, 306 Or 231, 759 P2d 1054 (1988), would require suppression here, even in the absence of the exigent circumstances relied upon by the majority.