United States v. Avery Jay Warner
843 F. 2d 401, 1988 WL 28260 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord who has only a limited right to enter a tenant's premises for specific purposes like repairs does not have the authority to consent to a police search of that property. For a warrantless search to be justified by exigent circumstances, the facts known to the officer at the time of entry must be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that immediate action is necessary to prevent serious physical harm.
Facts:
- In June 1986, the defendant, Warner, rented a residence and garage.
- Warner and his landlord agreed that the landlord had permission to enter the premises to make certain repairs and mow the lawn.
- On June 17, while in the garage to find a power source, the landlord saw boxes of chemicals, including P2P, ether, and formaldehyde.
- The landlord consulted a chemist friend who told him the chemicals posed no hazard.
- In early July, Warner informed the landlord he planned to move out by the end of the month.
- On July 12, a hot day, the landlord was on the property to mow the lawn and noticed a pungent chemical smell, which caused him to become concerned.
- The landlord called the police to check the garage but specifically told them the situation was not an emergency.
Procedural Posture:
- Warner was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for possessing a controlled substance.
- Warner filed a motion in the district court to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his garage.
- The district court (trial court) granted Warner's motion to suppress.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Warner as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's consent, based on a limited right of entry, and an officer's concern about a potential chemical hazard, justify a warrantless search of a tenant's garage under the third-party consent or exigent circumstances exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Circuit Judge
No. A landlord's limited right of entry for specific purposes is insufficient to provide valid third-party consent for a police search, and exigent circumstances must be judged by the facts known to the officer at the time of the search, which here did not suggest an immediate threat. Regarding consent, a landlord cannot waive a tenant's Fourth Amendment rights because the landlord lacks an equal right of access to the premises; their access here was strictly limited to repairs and mowing. Regarding exigent circumstances, the exception requires a reasonable belief that immediate entry is necessary to prevent harm. Here, the officer could not smell the reported odor, knew the chemicals had been there for weeks, and was told by the landlord it was not an emergency. The officer's search cannot be justified by expert testimony at a later hearing about dangers unknown to the officer at the time. Finally, the 'good faith' exception does not apply to a warrantless search based on an officer's own flawed judgment of the circumstances.
Dissenting - Brunetti, Circuit Judge
Yes. The warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances because the totality of the circumstances known to the officer would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe immediate entry was necessary to protect life and avoid serious injury. The officer knew that chemicals associated with drug manufacturing and explosion risk, such as formaldehyde and ether, had been stored in the garage for weeks during the summer heat. The fact that the property was in a populated area created a greater exigency than in prior cases involving remote locations, as more people were at risk. The officer's actions upon entry—immediately calling the fire department—support the conclusion that a bona fide emergency existed.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the third-party consent and exigent circumstances exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It reinforces the principle that a landlord's consent is invalid without a showing of joint access or control over the tenant's property. The court's analysis of exigent circumstances underscores that the officer's knowledge at the moment of entry is the sole determinant, preventing the government from using post-hoc justifications or later-discovered facts to validate a warrantless search. This ruling protects tenants' privacy rights and limits police discretion by rejecting an expansion of the 'good faith' exception to warrantless searches based on an officer's independent, but mistaken, assessment of the situation.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Avery Jay Warner