United States v. Avery Jay Warner

The Government appeals from an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence in this prosecution for possessing a controlled substance used to manufacture methamphetamine. The evidence suppressed was obtained through a war-rantless search of a garage leased to the defendant. The Government’s principal justifications for the search were (1) that the landlord had provided requisite consent, or (2) that there were exigent circumstances. Based upon its careful findings of fact, the district court concluded that the landlord could not have provided requisite consent because he lacked joint access to the garage, and the information available to the officer at the time did not present exigent circumstances. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 , and we affirm.

The underlying facts as found by the district court are not materially disputed. The defendant rented the residence and garage in Sacramento in June, 1986. At that time, it was agreed that the landlord had permission to enter the premises in the defendant’s absence to make certain repairs and mow the lawn.

On June 17, the landlord went to the residence to make repairs and entered the garage seeking a…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that exigent circumstances did not justify the officer’s warrantless entry into Warner’s leased premises. We review the ultimate issue of whether exigent circumstances justified the officer’s warrant-less entry under the de novo standard, United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1277-78 (9th Cir.1986). The totality of circumstances in this case demonstrate a “need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury.” Id. at 1278 , citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). On that basis, I would reverse the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Determining the existence of exigent circumstances requires use of an objective test. “[Ajlmost without exception in evaluating alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment the Court has first undertaken an objective assessment of an officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances then known to him ... would the facts available to the officer at the moment of seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate”? Scott v. United…

843 F.2d 401 56 USLW 2646 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Avery Jay WARNER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-1084. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 10, 1987. Decided April 5, 1988. As Amended June 16, 1988. David F. Levi, U.S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Robert M. Holley, Asst. Federal Defender, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before SCHROEDER, PREGERSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 The Government appeals from an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence in this prosecution for possessing a controlled substance used to manufacture methamphetamine. The evidence suppressed was obtained through a warrantless search of a garage leased to the defendant. The Government's principal justifications for the search were (1) that the landlord had provided requisite consent, or (2) that there were exigent circumstances. Based upon its careful findings of fact, the district court concluded that the landlord could not have provided requisite consent because he lacked joint access to…