United States v. Matthew Stafford

On the afternoon of January 22, 2003, Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriffs officers responded to a report of a possible dead body inside what witnesses described as a blood-spattered apartment in a state of disarray. In the course of looking for a possibly injured or deceased person, the deputies saw two assault rifles, a suspected grenade launcher, ammunition, and photographs of a man apparently injecting drugs intravenously while sitting in the bathroom of what appeared to be the same apartment.

As a result of this entry, observation, and subsequent seizure of the weapons, Matthew Stafford was charged with and convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search. He also argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence constitutes plain error. We hold that the war-rantless entry was reasonably justified by the emergency doctrine, and that the rifles and ammunition seized were properly admitted into evidence under the plain view…

dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from the affir-mance of Stafford’s conviction because I conclude that the warrantless search of the apartment was not justified by the emergency doctrine.

As the majority opinion recognizes, a warrantless search of a residence is presumptively unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 714-15 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984). We have, however, permitted a narrow exception to that rule when the conditions of an emergency are present. United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882 (9th Cir.2000). The first required condition for an .emergency search is that the “police officers have ‘reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance’ ”, to preserve life or protect against serious bodily injury. Id. at 889 (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y.1976)). 2 I conclude that this requirement has not been met here.

The fire alarm inspector and maintenance man who serially first entered the apartment were confronted with a strong smell that was strongest in the bathroom, and saw blood and feces strewn about. They…

416 F.3d 1068 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew STAFFORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-30134. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 6, 2005. * Filed August 3, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED David B. Koch, Nielsen, Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellant. Michael J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Robert S. Lasnik, Chief U.S. District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00169-RSL. Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. TALLMAN, Circuit Judge: 1 On the afternoon of January 22, 2003, Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff's officers responded to a report of a possible dead body inside what witnesses described as a blood-spattered apartment in a state of disarray. In the course of looking for a possibly injured or deceased person, the deputies saw two assault rifles, a suspected grenade launcher, ammunition, and photographs of a man apparently injecting drugs intravenously while sitting in the bathroom of what appeared to be the same…