United States v. Michael Hugaboom

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Michael Hugaboom

984 F.2d 1083, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 897, 1993 WL 8836

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 1993

Docket91-2275

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 984 F.2d 1083 (United States v. Michael Hugaboom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Michael Hugaboom, 984 F.2d 1083, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 897, 1993 WL 8836 (10th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

On February 7, 1991, officers executed a search warrant for the residence of Robert Brown. A methamphetamine laboratory was discovered and Defendant-appellant Michael Hugaboom, who was present at the time, was arrested. The facts of the case are more fully set forth in United States v. Brown, 984 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.1992).

Mr. Hugaboom was tried along with Robert Brown and Howard Beard and convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). Mr. Hugaboom appeals, arguing that no probable cause existed to support his arrest and evidence seized as a result of that arrest should have been suppressed. We affirm.

Defendant argues that his arrest was predicated on “mere presence.” We disagree. Officers were executing a valid warrant when they encountered the very strong odor associated with a methamphetamine laboratory. United States v. Brown, 984 F.2d 1074. During the execution of a previous search warrant at this residence, Mr. Hugaboom attempted to escape the scene, but was apprehended. Officers testified that all those present, including Defendant, had the same smell of a methamphetamine laboratory. Drug paraphernalia as well as several packets of a substance suspected to be methamphetamine were found at the residence.

Probable cause exists “where the facts and circumstances known to the police are sufficient in themselves to warrant a prudent officer in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, [1084]*1084101 S.Ct. 365, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980) (citing McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)). We hold that the circumstances described here are sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest. See United States v. Lillard, 929 F.2d 500, 502 (9th Cir.1991) (distinctive smell of methamphetamine together with other suspicious factors gave probable cause to arrest).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

On February 7, 1991, officers executed a search warrant for the residence of Robert Brown. A methamphetamine laboratory was discovered and Defendant-appellant Michael Hugaboom, who was present at the time, was arrested. The facts of the case are more fully set forth in United States v. Brown, 984 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.1992).

Mr. Hugaboom was tried along with Robert Brown and Howard Beard and convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). Mr. Hugaboom appeals, arguing that no probable cause existed to support his arrest and evidence seized as a result of that arrest should have been suppressed. We affirm.

Defendant argues that his arrest was predicated on “mere presence.” We disagree. Officers were executing a valid warrant when they encountered the very strong odor associated with a methamphetamine laboratory. United States v. Brown, 984 F.2d 1074. During the execution of a previous search warrant at this residence, Mr. Hugaboom attempted to escape the scene, but was apprehended. Officers testified that all those present, including Defendant, had the same smell of a methamphetamine laboratory. Drug paraphernalia as well as several packets of a substance suspected to be methamphetamine were found at the residence.

Probable cause exists “where the facts and circumstances known to the police are sufficient in themselves to warrant a prudent officer in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, [1084]*1084101 S.Ct. 365, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980) (citing McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)). We hold that the circumstances described here are sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest. See United States v. Lillard, 929 F.2d 500, 502 (9th Cir.1991) (distinctive smell of methamphetamine together with other suspicious factors gave probable cause to arrest).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

984 F.2d 1083, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 897, 1993 WL 8836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-hugaboom-ca10-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack