844 F.3d 759
8th Cir.2016Background
- Confidential informant (known) bought crack from Victor Brown and reported Brown would travel to Chicago with an unknown male (later identified as Wright) in a dark SUV to obtain drugs.
- Police surveilled: saw the SUV arrive at Brown’s residence, depart (route consistent with a Chicago trip), and return hours later; Brown and Wright rummaged in the rear of the SUV and Brown carried a duffel into his residence.
- Wright later drove the SUV to an apartment complex known for drug activity; officers conducted surveillance and had a uniformed officer approach and spotlight the SUV in a marked car.
- The officer spoke with Wright, smelled burnt marijuana on Wright, directed him to walk away for questioning, and smelled marijuana from the vehicle; officers observed a marijuana cigar in plain view on the console.
- Officers searched the vehicle, seized ~113 grams of crack cocaine from the glove compartment, and arrested Wright; Wright moved to suppress the evidence and statements but entered a conditional guilty plea preserving appeal of the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge police entry onto apartment parking lot | Wright: had privacy interest as a visitor claiming cousin lived there | Government: Wright did not own/live or stay overnight; no reasonable expectation of privacy | No standing; Wright lacked reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Reasonable suspicion to detain Wright in parking lot | Wright: officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him | Government: tip corroborated by surveillance, travel pattern, rummaging in vehicle, stops, and location tied to drug activity | Officers had reasonable suspicion; initial contact not a seizure; odor of marijuana provided probable cause |
| Probable cause to search vehicle (including glove compartment) | Wright: search of vehicle exceeded lawful scope/no probable cause | Government: odor of burnt marijuana and visible marijuana cigar gave probable cause to search for drugs; vehicle search permissible under Carroll doctrine | Search lawful; plain smell/view and exigency of vehicle search justified examining glove compartment |
| Search of Wright’s person (for key) | Wright (raised later): officers searched pockets unlawfully to obtain key used to unlock SUV | Government: argument not raised below; officers had probable cause from marijuana odor and may search incident to arrest; search before formal arrest still lawful | Argument forfeited; in any event search was lawful as incident to arrest/probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has privacy rights)
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959) (corroborated informant tips can support probable cause/reasonable suspicion)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (warrantless vehicle searches permissible when probable cause exists)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (police may search containers in a vehicle if they have probable cause to search the vehicle)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search incident to arrest doctrine limits scope to arrestee and areas within immediate control)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (timing of formal arrest does not necessarily render a contemporaneous search invalid)
- United States v. Bearden, 780 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Walker, 840 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2016) (odor and plain view of marijuana can supply probable cause to search for drugs)
- United States v. Perdoma, 621 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (odor of marijuana on person can establish probable cause to arrest)