In State v. Pape, 11th Dist. No. 2004-A-0044, 2005 Ohio 4657, the Eleventh District noted: "Other courts have determined that the 'basic aspects of the 'exigent circumstances' exception are that: (1) law enforcement officers must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is immediate need to protect their lives or others or their property or that of others; (2) the search must not be motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approaching probable cause, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.' United States v. Rhiger (C.A. 10 2003), 315 F.3d 1283, 1288; Wicks, 994 F.2d at 970 (citation omitted); Foutz v. West Valley City (C.D.Utah 2004), 345 F.Supp. 1272, 1275 Lopkoff v. Slater (D.Colo. 1994), 898 F.Supp. 767, 775. "Applying the foregoing test, the courts have upheld limited warrantless searches when the odor of chemicals associated with methamphetamine production was detected coming from a residence, the observing officer had extensive knowledge of the particular dangers associated with an active methamphetamine lab, and there was no evidence offered that agents entered the home with an intent to arrest and seize evidence. Rhiger, 315 F.3d at 1290-1291; See also, United States v. Erb (C.A. 10, 1979) 596 F.2d 412, 418 (exigent circumstances search upheld where the odor of methamphetamine production was evident, the agent had extensive experience in the matter of clandestine laboratory operations and knowledge of their inherent dangers); United States v. Wilson (C.A. 9, 1989), 865 F.2d 215, 217; United States v. Spinelli (C.A. 2, 1988), 848 F.2d 26, 30 (exigent circumstances included the volatile nature of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, and the likelihood of explosion)." Pape at P23-24.