Background
Jalen McIntyre appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a prolonged traffic stop and a subsequent warrantless search of his vehicle. McIntyre argued that law enforcement testimony about smelling marijuana did not establish reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop or probable cause for the search.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress as a mixed question of law and fact, deferring to the district court’s factual findings unless they were contrary to the laws of nature or so improbable that no reasonable fact-finder could accept them. The court found the officers’ testimony that they smelled marijuana credible, noting it was not contrary to the laws of nature that closing a vehicle door could push the odor outward. The court held that the smell of marijuana alone provides a basis for reasonable suspicion to prolong a stop. Regarding the vehicle search, the court applied the automobile exception, which requires the vehicle to be readily mobile and the officer to have probable cause. The court concluded that the smell of marijuana alone provided probable cause to search the vehicle. The court also noted that McIntyre could not request reconsideration of prior panel precedent regarding marijuana-related probable cause without an en banc ruling or Supreme Court intervention.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent that the odor of marijuana, even in a closed vehicle, can independently establish reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop and probable cause to conduct a warrantless search under the automobile exception.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download