Antoine Gaither was pulled over by Deputy Nicholas Danielski for failing to stop at a stop sign. Before the deputy exited his patrol car, he detected the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from Gaither's vehicle. Deputy Danielski ordered Gaither out of the car, but Gaither refused multiple times for nearly seven minutes. After Gaither finally exited, he was arrested for obstruction, and a pat-down revealed a loaded handgun hidden under his hoodie. Gaither was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the handgun, arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged and the search lacked probable cause. The district court denied the motion, crediting the deputy's testimony that he smelled burnt marijuana, and sentenced Gaither to thirty-six months in prison. Gaither appealed, reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling.
The Sixth Circuit applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. First, the court addressed whether ordering Gaither out of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms and United States v. Fellmy, the court reaffirmed that officers may always order drivers out of their cars during a lawful stop, regardless of the officer's subjective motive. The court rejected Gaither's argument that this rule only applies when there are specific safety concerns, noting that the safety concerns inherent in any traffic stop justify the 'mere inconvenience' of exiting the vehicle. Second, the court examined whether the stop was unlawfully prolonged. While an officer cannot extend a stop beyond the time needed to address the traffic violation without reasonable suspicion, the court found that the odor of burnt marijuana provided the necessary reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the delay. Third, regarding the search itself, the court held that the smell of marijuana can establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the automobile exception. The court emphasized that Gaither's appeal effectively attacked the district court's credibility determination regarding the deputy's testimony. Because credibility findings are ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, and the district court found the deputy credible, the appellate court could not reweigh the evidence or conclude the deputy did not smell the marijuana.
The decision reinforces the broad authority of police to order drivers out of vehicles during traffic stops and confirms that the odor of marijuana, even if described as 'burnt' in a report rather than on the scene, can support probable cause for a vehicle search. The ruling limits the ability of defendants to challenge suppression motions by attacking the credibility of police testimony on appeal. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to maintain the thirty-six-month sentence, as the evidence remains admissible.