Officers from the Calhoun County Sheriff’s Department and Battle Creek Police Department discovered a pipe bomb while executing a search warrant at Lonnie Hodge's residence, seeking evidence of a methamphetamine lab. Alongside the bomb, they found marijuana, prescription drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a rifle. Hodge was indicted for possession of an unregistered destructive device and possession of a firearm while unlawfully using a controlled substance. He filed a motion to suppress the pipe bomb, claiming the search warrant lacked probable cause and that his statements to officers were obtained without Miranda warnings. The district court denied the motion, leading Hodge to enter a conditional guilty plea and appeal the suppression denial.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. The search was based on detailed information from a local resident, Jacob Banks, who reported seeing methamphetamine production and firearms at Hodge's home. Banks described a pipe bomb and claimed Hodge threatened police. Detective Bryan Gandy corroborated Banks's account by investigating Hodge's recent purchases of ephedrine and previous police records regarding methamphetamine activity linked to Hodge and his associates. Gandy's affidavit, supported by Banks's statements and corroborating evidence, led to the successful warrant application for the search.
The affidavit did not reference the pipe bomb and gun that Banks observed but included tips regarding firearms. Gandy, who authored the affidavit, later testified that he focused on methamphetamine evidence due to stronger support for that claim. He believed the warrant’s scope, which authorized the search for any firearms, was adequate to include a pipe bomb. On October 18, Gandy contacted Matt Robinson from the Battle Creek Police Department for execution assistance, agreeing that the Emergency Response Team (ERT) was necessary because of credible reports of dangerous weapons at Hodge’s residence. The search was structured in three phases: securing occupants, testing for hazardous gases, and conducting a thorough search for evidence. Due to bomb concerns, Officer Marc Pierce, trained in explosives, accompanied the ERT.
Upon arrival at Hodge's home, officers announced their presence but breached the door when there was no response. Hodge confronted officers wielding a screwdriver but dropped it and was quickly subdued and handcuffed. After securing Hodge outside, Gandy, without providing Miranda warnings, questioned him about potential hazards in the house, to which Hodge denied any dangers. Pierce also inquired about a bomb and left after receiving a similar response. Shortly after, during a lull in their conversation, Hodge revealed there was a bomb in the house, specifically stating it was wrapped in a towel on top of a kitchen cabinet. Robinson, who was exiting after the gas sweep, overheard this exchange and began asking his own questions regarding the bomb.
Robinson testified that his inquiries about the bomb were motivated by safety concerns for the officers present. Upon entering Hodge’s home, he identified the object described by Hodge. Approximately fifteen minutes after initially dismissing Pierce, officers contacted him to return to the scene, where he used a robot to safely retrieve and neutralize a five-inch pipe bomb, which he deemed 'rather large' for such devices. Following the bomb’s neutralization, Gandy led a comprehensive search of the residence, which did not reveal a methamphetamine lab but uncovered marijuana, prescription drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a Marlin .22 caliber rifle.
Hodge faced charges for (1) knowing possession of an unregistered firearm (the pipe bomb) under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and (2) possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of controlled substances under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Hodge sought to suppress the pipe bomb and his statements that led to its discovery. The district court rejected his argument that the search warrant lacked 'probable cause' and conducted an evidentiary hearing on claims that the bomb's discovery violated Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendment. Witnesses included Robinson, Gandy, Pierce, and a nurse who examined Hodge after his arrest. The court ultimately denied the suppression motion, concluding that Hodge had not been coerced, voluntarily discussed the bomb, and that the officers’ inquiries were justified by public safety concerns. It also determined that the bomb would have been inevitably discovered during the execution of the search warrant.
Subsequent to the denial of his motion, Hodge entered a plea agreement preserving his right to appeal and pled guilty to both charges on September 19, 2011, receiving a thirty-six-month sentence on February 1, 2012. Hodge filed an appeal on February 3. The appellate court reviews the factual findings of the district court for clear error and legal determinations de novo, considering evidence favorably toward the government since it prevailed at the district level. Hodge initially contests the search warrant's validity, which requires 'probable cause' under the Fourth Amendment, defined as a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found based on the circumstances outlined in the warrant affidavit.
Reviewing courts should give significant deference to a magistrate's finding of probable cause, reversing it only if exercised arbitrarily. The affidavit supporting the warrant for Hodge's alleged methamphetamine production was well-supported, particularly by a named informant's statements, which are generally deemed reliable due to the consequences of dishonesty towards law enforcement. Hodge's argument regarding the lack of information on the reliability of the informant was countered by the understanding that independent corroboration is not a prerequisite for establishing probable cause. Despite noted imperfections in the affidavit, such as a lack of acknowledgment of the informant's awareness of the warrant application and unspecified quantities of chemicals purchased by Hodge, these issues were not sufficiently developed in district court, and any ambiguities must favor the government. Consequently, Hodge's probable cause argument is rejected.
Additionally, Hodge contends that statements made regarding a pipe bomb violated Miranda rights, thus warranting suppression of both the statements and the bomb. However, the court found the statements admissible under the 'public safety' exception to Miranda, which allows for questioning without warnings when officers have a reasonable belief of imminent danger. Assessing the reasonableness of this belief involves consideration of various factors, including the suspect's history and the circumstances of the crime.
The court reviews the reasonableness of an officer's belief regarding potential threats de novo, as indicated in Talley, 275 F.3d at 563. The Quarles standard, previously applied in cases involving firearms, requires that officers must have reason to believe that a suspect might possess a weapon and that others could access it to cause harm. This condition is mandatory, as established in Williams, 483 F.3d at 428. However, the applicability of the public safety exception hinges on whether these conditions are met and if no contextual evidence contradicts the officer's perceived threat. Hodge argues that because the government did not demonstrate awareness of a third party who could access a pipe bomb in his home, the exception should not apply.
The critical assessment under Quarles is whether officers have a reasonable belief of danger based on articulable facts, which varies with the type of weapon involved. In gun-related cases, awareness of a third party is essential; however, for bombs, such awareness is less crucial due to the inherent instability and potential danger of bombs. Thus, the court agrees with the government that the Williams test should be limited to weapons requiring physical handling to pose a threat. Supporting precedent from other circuits highlights that concerns about third-party access to bombs are not prerequisites for questioning suspects about them. In United States v. Khalil, the court upheld questioning a suspect about bomb construction even after police secured the scene, affirming that such questions could illuminate bomb safety. Similarly, in United States v. Spoerke, the court allowed inquiries about bomb-like devices, asserting that the absence of third-party risk did not invalidate the questioning. The court concludes that the statements made by Hodge about the pipe bomb were admissible under Quarles, with questions falling into two categories: general safety inquiries and specific inquiries following Hodge's admission of the bomb's existence.
Gandy and Pierce had a reasonable belief that a pipe bomb was present in Hodge’s residence based on informant Banks's claims that Hodge possessed a dangerous explosive intended for use against police. Their inquiries, focused on the bomb's construction and stability, were deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The district court correctly ruled that Hodge’s statements and the bomb itself were admissible under the Quarles exception. Alternatively, the court concluded that even without questioning Hodge, the officers would have inevitably discovered the bomb during the search. The government must demonstrate that a lawful, untainted investigation would have led to the evidence's discovery, which can be shown through routine police procedures. The court’s analysis emphasized that a lawful search encompasses all areas where the sought items may be located. In this case, the search warrant allowed for an extensive examination of Hodge’s home for narcotics-related items, justifying the examination of the pipe bomb, which was in plain sight. The district court's determination that the bomb would have been uncovered during the search was affirmed.
