UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL OWEN - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL OWEN

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Oct 10, 2019

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1:

ARGUED: Jennifer Niles Coffin, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2:

ON BRIEF: Jennifer Niles Coffin, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, Jay Woods, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee. >

Judge(s): MERRITT, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Methamphetamine may not be manufactured without governmental authorization. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6). Congress has regulated this practice in part to curb the unauthorized distribution of methamphetamine, which has a “detrimental effect on [our] health and general welfare.” 21 U.S.C. § 801(2). Yet equally detrimental, in many respects, is the process for manufacturing methamphetamine, which itself can have potentially hazardous consequences, if not done under appropriate conditions. See Hazards Of Illicit Methamphetamine Production And Efforts At Reduction: Data From The Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance System, U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports 126 (supp. 1), 121–22 (2011). As the “illegal production of meth[amphetamine] often involves use of volatile chemicals and makeshift equipment, these sites can be extremely dangerous.” Id. Among the dangers is the risk that, during and after the manufacturing process, the ingredients and equipment will explode or otherwise catch fire. Id.

We are asked to apply those considerations to a defendant who, while riding in a vehicle with a seven-year-old child, transported equipment that had been used to manufacture methamphetamine. In that setting, the equipment presented a modest risk of combustion, and thus a modest risk of injuring the minor. By the same token, any combustion would have been devastating to the minor, if not fatal. In this close case, we agree with the district court that, on balance, the likelihood of substantial injury to the child in the vehicle should the equipment combust constitutes a “substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor.” We accordingly AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Attachments: