Defendant Cory Lamar Jackson was stopped while driving a rented SUV containing approximately five pounds of cocaine. The government prosecuted him for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Jackson moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause. The district court denied the motion, and Jackson appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the facts found by the lower court rather than the facts themselves.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the legal conclusion of probable cause de novo, crediting the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. The court analyzed the totality of the circumstances to determine if there was a fair probability that contraband would be found in the SUV. First, the court addressed the smell of burnt marijuana. While the smell alone might only justify searching the passenger compartment, the court assumed for argument's sake that the third row of the SUV functioned as a trunk. Even under this assumption, the smell of burnt marijuana, combined with other factors, could support a search of the entire vehicle. Second, the court examined the inconsistent travel stories provided by Jackson and his passenger; Jackson claimed they were visiting family in Oklahoma, while the passenger claimed they were returning from Houston to buy a car. The court credited the district court's finding that these stories were contradictory. Third, the court considered Jackson's extreme nervousness, based on officer testimony that Jackson's hands shook and his pulse quickened visibly. Although a police video suggested Jackson appeared calm, the court noted that Jackson did not rely on the video to challenge the finding of nervousness. Finally, the court considered Jackson's criminal history, which included prior arrests for drug trafficking and distribution. The court concluded that while some factors in isolation might not be sufficient, the combination of the smell of burnt marijuana, inconsistent travel stories, extreme nervousness, and prior drug arrests provided the officer with probable cause to search the third row of the SUV.
The evidence obtained from the search remains admissible for the prosecution of cocaine possession. The decision reinforces the principle that probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances, allowing officers to rely on a combination of sensory observations, behavioral cues, and criminal history to justify a vehicle search. The case does not resolve whether the use of a rental vehicle alone contributes to probable cause, as the court assumed for argument's sake that it did not.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download