United States v. Bernard McMillion
472 F. App'x 138 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance that, when combined with probable cause established by the distinct and particularized smell of marijuana, justifies a warrantless entry into a residence.
Facts:
- On August 17, 2007, police officers Ronald Soutner and Dennis Krahling were patrolling apartment complexes as part of a drug task force.
- Inside one building, Officer Soutner detected the smell of marijuana originating from the second floor.
- The officers followed the odor to apartment number three and knocked on the door, identifying themselves as police.
- After a brief delay, the tenant, Schkira Washington, opened the door, at which point the officers detected a much stronger marijuana odor.
- Bernard McMillion, Washington's boyfriend, approached the officers during their conversation with Washington.
- At some point during the encounter, the officers entered the apartment and handcuffed both Washington and McMillion.
- McMillion became agitated and admitted to the officers that the marijuana in the apartment was his but claimed it had all been smoked.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernard McMillion was charged in a three-count indictment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- McMillion filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence seized from the apartment, arguing the initial warrantless entry was unconstitutional.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the entry was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
- McMillion subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to drug and firearm charges.
- The plea agreement permitted McMillion to appeal the District Court's denial of his suppression motion.
- McMillion, as the appellant, timely appealed the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 warrantless entry into an apartment violate the Fourth Amendment when police officers smell a strong odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, announce their presence, and reasonably believe that the occupants are actively destroying the contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge
No, the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Warrantless searches of a home are presumptively unreasonable unless both probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. Probable cause was established by the smell of marijuana, which the court has previously held is sufficient if it is 'articulable and particularized.' Here, the officers followed a specific odor to a specific apartment, and the smell became stronger when the door was opened, satisfying this standard. An exigent circumstance existed due to the need 'to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.' Given McMillion’s admission that he had been smoking the marijuana, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to conclude that the contraband was being destroyed and would continue to be destroyed if they did not act immediately to secure the scene.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'plain smell' doctrine as a standalone basis for establishing probable cause in drug investigations. It further clarifies the application of the 'destruction of evidence' exigency, holding that a reasonable belief that drugs are being actively consumed can justify a warrantless entry. The ruling provides law enforcement with clear authority to enter a residence without a warrant under these specific circumstances, potentially lowering the threshold for entry in similar drug cases. The case underscores the fact-specific nature of the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
