United States v. Nicademus Johnson , 445 F. App'x 311 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-11072 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 28, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00085-MHT-CSC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NICADEMUS JOHNSON,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(October 28, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Following his convictions for simple possession of marijuana and being a
felon in possession of a firearm, Nicademus Johnson appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of
his automobile. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On the night of April 5, 2008, Defendant Johnson and his acquaintance
Johnny Fenn went for a drive in Johnson’s car. Fenn, who had an outstanding
felony arrest warrant, rode in the passenger seat. After receiving a police dispatch
call regarding Fenn’s presence in the car, Officer Anthony McLendon began to
follow them in his police vehicle and activated its lights. However, Johnson
continued to drive. Johnson ran a stop sign and drove approximately another 100
to 200 yards before stopping.
Officer McLendon arrested Fenn. After Fenn’s arrest, Officer McLendon
searched Defendant Johnson’s car and discovered in the trunk a handgun and a
black bag containing numerous clear plastic bags filled with marijuana. Some
loose marijuana was also inside the black bag.
2
Defendant Johnson filed a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing that the
warrantless search of his car was unsupported by probable cause.1
A federal magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on Johnson’s
suppression motion. The government called Officer McLendon, who first testified
about the events leading to the traffic stop. At the time of the stop, Officer
McLendon stated it was raining and dark, with a little wind. Officer McLendon
and another officer approached the car’s passenger side and ordered Fenn out of
the car. When Fenn refused, Officer McLendon opened the passenger door and
ordered Fenn to get out. Fenn again refused. At that point, Officer McLendon
reached into the car, grabbed Fenn, and removed him from the car. Officer
McLendon then told Johnson to turn off his car, but Johnson failed to comply.
Officer McLendon smelled raw marijuana when he removed Fenn. The raw
marijuana smell was strongest in the back seat area. According to Officer
McLendon, he had encountered marijuana 100 to 150 times during his time with
the police department. Additionally, based on his training and experience, Officer
McLendon testified he was familiar with the difference in odor between burnt and
raw marijuana.
1
Johnson appeals only the denial of the suppression of the physical evidence found in his
vehicle.
3
After Officer McLendon arrested Fenn, the other officer detained Johnson,
and McLendon searched the car. Officer McLendon discovered the handgun and
the bag containing marijuana in the trunk.
Defendant Johnson then called Dr. Richard Doty, an expert in the sense of
smell. Dr. Doty testified that cold temperature, wind, and rain would all impede
the movement of scent molecules. In Dr. Doty’s opinion, it would be “next to
impossible” for an officer to smell the marijuana inside the black bag in Johnson’s
trunk, due to the marijuana’s packaging and the weather conditions.
On cross-examination, Dr. Doty admitted he was unfamiliar with the
potency or strength of smell of the particular marijuana found in Johnson’s car.
Moreover, Dr. Doty could not testify to the exact temperature or other
environmental conditions at the time of the traffic stop. Dr. Doty was unfamiliar
with Johnson’s vehicle and could not say whether the car’s modified rear speakers
improved or impeded air flow between the passenger compartment and the trunk.
In his report and recommendation (“R&R”), the magistrate judge
recommended denying Johnson’s motion to suppress because the vehicle search
was supported by probable cause. The magistrate judge found Officer
McLendon’s testimony credible and gave little weight to Dr. Doty’s testimony.
The magistrate judge noted that Dr. Doty was unfamiliar with many of the salient
4
facts of the traffic stop and could not address the “multitude of possible scenarios
which bear on the question of whether it is possible for an officer to smell raw
marijuana.”
The district court adopted the R&R, specifically noting that the magistrate
judge “appropriately found” Officer McLendon’s testimony to be credible. The
district court thus denied Johnson’s motion to suppress.
Johnson’s case proceeded to trial, and a jury found him guilty of simple
possession of marijuana and being a felon in possession of a firearm.2 The district
court sentenced Johnson to 12 months’ imprisonment as to the marijuana offense
and 27 months’ imprisonment as to the felon-in-possession offense, both terms to
run concurrently. Johnson appeals only the denial of his motion to suppress.
II. DISCUSSION
A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question
of law and fact. United States v. Bautista-Silva, 567 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir.
2
The indictment charged Johnson with three offenses: (1) possession of a controlled
substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) using, carrying, and
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A); and (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1).
Based on the jury instructions and the verdict, it is clear that the jury convicted Johnson
of simple possession on Count 1, and acquitted Johnson on Count 2, the § 924(c) offense.
However, the judgment reflects that the simple possession conviction was entered under 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) rather than 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). When the case returns to the district court, the
district court should correct the statutory reference.
5
2009). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and review de
novo the district court’s application of the law to the facts. Id. This Court
construes all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See United
States v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007). Further, we defer to the
district court’s credibility determinations, unless they appear “unbelievable.”
United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002).
The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
permits “the police to conduct a search of a vehicle if (1) the vehicle is readily
mobile[,] and (2) the police have probable cause for the search.” United States v.
Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007). The mobility requirement is
satisfied by a showing that the automobile is operational. United States v. Watts,
329 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Johnson does not dispute that his
car was operational, our only inquiry is whether the officers had probable cause to
search the car.
Probable cause for a vehicle search “exists when under the totality of the
circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in the vehicle.” Lindsey, 482 F.3d at 1293 (quotation marks
omitted). Our case law establishes that if a police officer detects the odor of
marijuana, this gives rise to probable cause supporting a warrantless search. See
6
United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc); United
States v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1982).
Here, Officer McLendon testified that he was familiar with the odor of raw
marijuana and smelled it when he removed Fenn from Johnson’s car. Nothing
inherently unbelievable exists regarding Officer McLendon’s testimony. See
Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d at 749. We conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in crediting Officer McLendon’s testimony. Thus, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
7