United States v. Carolyn Landis, Fred Landis, and Lee Norman Clark

Defendants were convicted of various and sundry counts relating to the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. They appeal from the denial of their pretrial motions to suppress evidence found at their residences, contending insufficiency of the affidavit offered to obtain the search warrants. , We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Lee Norman Clark is a physician. Fred Landis is a dentist. They, along with Carolyn Landis, were convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, conspiracy and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of the controlled “precursor chemical” phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Most, if not all, of the dispositive evidence against Clark and the Landises was obtained through searches of their respective residences. Warrants for those searches were issued by Senior U.S. District Judge Sherrill Halbert, on the basis of identical affidavits executed by DEA Special Agent Patrick Gregory.

This case presents the essentially factual question of whether probable cause existed to justify the search of the Clark and Lan-dis residences, using the standards recently set forth in Illinois v. Gates,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527…

dissenting:

I dissent. Neither affidavit contains sufficient facts to establish probable cause. The majority’s attempt to save the affidavits will not withstand scrutiny.

The Clark Home

The majority’s analysis of the Clark affidavit is misleading. The majority states that, “[apparently, the basis of Source # l’s knowledge is observation of the methamphetamine laboratory . ... ” Maj. op. at 542 (emphasis added). The affidavit does not indicate any’such observation. The only information provided to the district judge who issued the warrant was that “sometime” between March and November, 1981, Clark’s children supposedly told an anonymous informant, “Source # 1,” that Clark was manufacturing “speed” in his basement. The only inference possible is that the informant told the DEA agent that appellant Clark’s son had done so. There is no indication that Source # 1 had any personal knowledge of the underlying allegation, or that Source # 1 had ever observed a laboratory.

Agent Gregory stated that a laboratory would make sounds like “a pump and running water” and it would produce “noxious odors.” But if Source # 1 had “apparently” at some time been in the Clark home, he never said…

726 F.2d 540 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carolyn LANDIS, Fred Landis, and Lee Norman Clark, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 83-1085, 83-1086 and 83-1103. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 16, 1983. Decided Feb. 22, 1984. Thomas T. Couris, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Clifford Tedmon, E.R. Walker, Clyde M. Blackmon, Blackmon, Wasserman & Segal, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before WRIGHT, CHOY, and POOLE, Circuit Judges. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendants were convicted of various and sundry counts relating to the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. They appeal from the denial of their pretrial motions to suppress evidence found at their residences, contending insufficiency of the affidavit offered to obtain the search warrants. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 Lee Norman Clark is a physician. Fred Landis is a dentist. They, along with Carolyn Landis, were convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, conspiracy and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of the controlled "precursor chemical"…