State of Iowa v. Lydell Jerome Stewart , 919 N.W.2d 635 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0705
Filed May 2, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LYDELL JEROME STEWART,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Nathan A.
Callahan, District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals his conviction asserting the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Lydell Stewart was found guilty, following a bench trial on the minutes of
evidence, of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. On appeal, he
claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
discovered during the warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving because
the police officer lacked probable cause. Because we agree with the district court
that the automobile exception applies to this set of facts, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Stewart’s motion to suppress.
On April 7, 2016, a Black Hawk County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled over Stewart
for a broken taillight. Stewart was driving his girlfriend’s vehicle. As the deputy
approached the vehicle, Stewart rolled down the driver’s side window, and the
deputy smelled a “very strong” odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle.
During the deputy’s twelve years with the Sheriff’s office, he had extensive
experience detecting the smell of marijuana and estimated he encountered the
smell almost daily. The deputy also noticed Stewart had bloodshot and watery
eyes. The deputy then asked Stewart about the odor, and Stewart admitted to
smoking marijuana earlier but not while he was in the vehicle. The deputy called
for backup; while one officer stood with Stewart between the stopped vehicle and
the deputy’s vehicle, another sheriff’s deputy approached the passenger window
of the stopped vehicle and detected a “faint” odor of marijuana coming from the
vehicle.
The deputy performed a pat-down search of Stewart, but he did not locate
anything illegal. Stewart maintained he did not smoke in the vehicle, but the deputy
performed a search of the vehicle. The deputy believed he located a marijuana
3
cigarette or blunt—approximately two to three inches long—and possibly some
used marijuana cigarettes, or “roaches,” in the center console area. The backup
deputy smelled the cigarette or blunt and also believed it contained marijuana.
Stewart filed a motion to suppress the marijuana found during the vehicle
search. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Stewart waived his
right to a jury trial, and stipulated to the minutes of evidence. The court found
Stewart guilty and sentenced him to 180 days in jail—all but thirty days
suspended—and placed him on probation. He appeals, contesting the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within the
carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Gaskins, 866
N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015).1 One of those exceptions is probable cause coupled
with exigent circumstances, which is termed the automobile exception when
applied to motor vehicles. Storm, 898 N.W.2d at 145. Stewart contends the
marijuana smell, noticed by both deputies, emanating from his vehicle does not
provide probable cause to search the vehicle because it was possible the odor
came from another source—Stewart’s clothing from smoking earlier. Moreover,
Stewart asserts the deputy lacked probable cause because the deputy did not find
any marijuana on him during the pat-down search and because he cooperated by
admitting he had smoked marijuana earlier.
1
Stewart asserts we should find “the Iowa Constitution requires more than the smell of
marijuana alone to constitute probable cause to search.” We decline to extend beyond
what our supreme court has articulated as the standard applicable in Iowa. See State v.
Storm, 898 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Iowa 2017) (electing to retain the automobile exception);
see also State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are not at
liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).
4
In addressing the smell of marijuana supporting a vehicle search, our
supreme court has held “a trained officer’s detection of a sufficiently distinctive
odor, by itself or when accompanied by other facts, may establish probable cause.”
State v. Watts, 801 N.W.2d 845, 854 (Iowa 2011); accord State v. Eubanks, 355
N.W.2d 57, 59 (Iowa 1984) (holding probable cause existed after patrolman
smelled marijuana drifting from the car when defendant was seated behind the
steering wheel). Therefore, despite Stewart’s argument that the deputy lacked
probable cause because he had no reason to think Stewart was lying and the odor
could have come from Stewart’s clothing, the deputy had probable cause to search
the vehicle. The deputy testified that Stewart had bloodshot, watery eyes and
admitted to smoking marijuana. In addition, the deputy testified that he detected
the odor of marijuana emanating from Stewart’s vehicle, which was sufficient, by
itself, to provide the probable cause to search the vehicle.
AFFIRMED.
.