United States v. Tamichale Paige, 870 F.3d 693

Background

After a McDonald’s employee reported a car parked in the drive-through for ~1 hour, fire personnel awakened Tamichale Paige, who said he had just fallen asleep in the driver’s seat.
Officer Tiara Sheets-Walker arrived, smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana on Paige and near the vehicle, and observed Paige appearing drowsy and evasive.
Police policy and officer safety concerns led Sheets-Walker to pat Paige down before placing him in the patrol wagon; the pat-down revealed a loaded Glock handgun.
After arresting Paige (no concealed-carry permit), Sheets-Walker searched the closed vehicle, smelled marijuana from inside, and found a digital scale, sandwich bags, 10.42 g crack cocaine, and 9.24 g marijuana.
Paige moved to suppress the firearm and drugs, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause to pat him down or to arrest and search the car.
The magistrate and district courts credited the officer’s testimony about the marijuana odor and denied suppression; Paige pleaded guilty subject to appeal and appealed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Paige's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to arrest Paige for marijuana possession?	Odor of marijuana is less probative now; odor alone (and Paige sleeping) did not establish probable cause or particularized possession.	The officer smelled fresh marijuana localized to Paige; combined with his sleepiness and evasive answers, this gave probable cause to arrest for possession.	Probable cause existed: officer credibly smelled marijuana on Paige and could localize it, supporting arrest for possession.
Was there probable cause to arrest Paige for operating under the influence?	Falling asleep in a car does not necessarily show impairment; officer should have performed field sobriety tests.	Extended parking in drive-through, drowsiness, evasive answers, and odor supported reasonable belief Paige was impaired.	Probable cause existed to arrest for operating while under the influence.
Was the pat-down of Paige lawful?	Pat-down lacked reasonable suspicion of danger and preceded any lawful arrest, so it was unlawful.	Search was incident to a lawful arrest (probable cause), and also justified by officer safety and policy; prompt arrest validated the search.	Pat-down was lawful as a search incident to a lawful arrest; timing (search before formal arrest) is permissible when arrest quickly follows.
Was the warrantless vehicle search lawful?	Vehicle search violated Fourth Amendment; odor alone insufficient; vehicle closed so officer could not observe contraband without warrant.	Vehicle search justified both under search-incident-to-arrest (evidence of the offense likely in the car) and the automobile exception given the strong odor of marijuana.	Vehicle search was lawful under both Gant’s search-incident-to-arrest second prong and the automobile exception; probable cause to believe vehicle contained evidence existed.

Key Cases Cited

Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (probable cause standard for arrests)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful arrest)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (search incident to arrest need not depend on state arrest procedures)
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (search preceding arrest is permissible when arrest quickly follows)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits and justifies vehicle searches incident to arrest)
Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
United States v. Edwards, 769 F.3d 509 (distinguishing vehicle search doctrines)
United States v. Franklin, 547 F.3d 726 (odor of marijuana as probable cause to search car)
United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653 (odors localized to person can support probable cause to arrest for possession)
United States v. Perdoma, 621 F.3d 745 (odor can give probable cause to arrest when localized)