Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down an interesting divided opinion in a search-and-seizure case in United States v. Purcell. Here's the summary from Judge Karen Moore's majority opinion.
In this case we are asked whether the discovery of men’s clothing in a bag that a female claimed to own erases for future bags the apparent authority that justified the officers’ warrantless search of the first bag, thereby making a subsequent search illegal. We hold that the discovery of men’s clothing eviscerated any apparent authority, but that the officers could have reestablished apparent authority by asking the supposed bag owner to verify her control over the other bags to be searched. Furthermore, we hold that exigent circumstances did not justify the illegal search. Because the officers in the instant case did not reestablish apparent authority and could not justify proceeding with a warrantless search by claiming an exigency, we hold that district court did not err when it suppressed the firearm that officers discovered after any apparent authority dissipated, and we AFFIRM the district court’s partial grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
Judge Gilman joined the majority opinion. Judge Sutton wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
2) I'm echoing Redlands' comment. That first paragraph particularly is the one of the worst pieces of writing I've encountered in a while.
3) I want to question something else about the decision: the emphasis on the dangers of meth labs. Is there any real reason to believe that the chemicals used in meth labs are actually dangerous? Not hypothetically dangerous, but actually dangerous? The only place I ever read about these dangers is in drug war propaganda. (And sure enough, as I continue reading the opinion, the "evidence" cited by the court is a DEA "fact sheet"; I'd sooner rely on Soviet-era Pravda.) I'm not questioning the scientific claim that the chemicals could be dangerous; I'm questioning the empirical claim that they actually pose a danger. Has anybody ever heard that innocent bystanders have actually been harmed by a meth lab merely because "chemicals" are used in this lab?
(Sure, google reveals a handful of stories of meth labs "exploding" while being used, but nothing I see about people living or walking nearby suddenly keeling over because there are "chemicals.")
I agree that unless you are in the contained environment of a meth lab, the odors are no more likely to cause you to keel over than walking by a gas station would. If you are in the "lab" (I put it in scary quotes because it is a "lab" only in the sense that chemical reactions are occurring involving heat) then that is a different matter--much like being around gasoline fumes in a closed garage.
But the chemicals used in cooking meth are highly flamable so the risk of fire and explosion is real--and my understanding is that because of the closed nature of the meth lab, properly cleaning up after one is a HazMat situation.
Oh, and I agree with everyone else. There is no excuse for a 43-word sentence that takes four lines of type. Particularly when it is immediately followed by a 37-word sentnece. Awful. Awful. Awful.
Perhaps Judge Moore should ask Judge Posner for writing tips.
Certainly in a lab setting one would require fume hoods any time you use ethyl ether since inhaling it is, well, inhaling ether. You need some base to do reduction so that's highly damaging as well (usually they use lye) -- basic lab equipment would be thick elbow-length gloves.
Realistically, the only danger the lab poses to your average Joe Citizen is that it will light on fire and the fire will spread to his house. If his children wander into an unlocked meth lab and start drinking chemicals maybe that too.
On the other hand, I would highly advise and LEOs to be extra careful barging in, especially if they interrupt the process while the heat is on.
Note that the facts do not indicate that Crist ever asserted ownership over the bag that the firearm was found in. Moore's position, whether correct, should be debated as to the facts that actually existed in this case. While Moore can be criticized for sloppy writing, if you want to argue against her conclusions, then strawmen or hypothetical facts not relevant to the search HERE cannot support your case.