United States v. Roosevelt Williams

Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 17-11843
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00031-MW-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
versus
ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
__________________________
(April 19, 2018)
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 2 of 12
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Williams appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence
obtained from searches of his vehicle in 2011 and 2013. We hold that the District
Court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because in both instances the
police had probable cause to believe that his vehicle contained evidence of a crime.
I.
A.
On October 19, 2011, Officer Bryan Cutcliffe of the Florida State University
Police Department pulled Williams over for speeding. When Officer Cutcliffe
approached Williams’ vehicle, he detected “the odor of burnt marijuana.” He
ordered Williams out of the car and searched him1 and his vehicle. The search
revealed “small bits of cannabis,” a number of pre-paid gift cards, some receipts,
and banking documentation.2 When Officer Cutcliffe questioned Williams about
the pre-paid gift cards, Williams “appeared to get very nervous and he began to
1
In his testimony, Officer Cutcliffe admitted that “nothing . . . specifically led [him] to
believe that [Williams]” was armed and dangerous when he patted Williams down.
2
Officer Cutcliffe testified in this case. He recounted the traffic stop as follows.
Due to the odor of cannabis coming from the car, I told Mr.
Williams that I was going to search him and the car. I had him exit
the car, at which point I searched his pockets looking for cannabis.
When I did so, I found two pre[-]paid gift cards in his pocket.
2
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 3 of 12
shake.” Rather than arrest Williams, however, Officer Cutcliffe confiscated the
pre-paid gift cards and allowed Williams to leave the scene.
Two years later, on June 13, 2013, Deputy Michael Wheeler of the Clayton
County Sheriff’s Office stopped Williams for traveling seventy-six miles an hour
in a zone with a speed limit of forty-five miles per hour. When Deputy Wheeler
spoke with Williams at the window of his vehicle, Williams appeared “nervous and
sweating.”
After running Williams’ license and registration, which came back clear,
Deputy Wheeler decided to arrest Williams for the traffic offense because “he
ha[d] an out-of-state plate” and “[i]t was better to go ahead and have him . . . make
bond on it.”3 Before arresting Williams, Deputy Wheeler requested another officer
to transport Williams. 4 Deputy Brian Hoe responded to the request and arrived to
assist Deputy Wheeler.
At this point, the deputies approached Williams in his vehicle to arrest him.
As they approached, Deputy Wheeler5 and Deputy Hoe both noticed “the smell of
3
In Georgia, a police officer has discretion to arrest a person for a traffic violation. Ga.
Code Ann. § 17-4-23(a). (“A law enforcement officer may arrest a person accused of violating
any law or ordinance governing the operation, licensing, registration, maintenance, or inspection
of motor vehicles . . . by the issuance of a citation, provided that the offense is committed in his
presence.”).
4
Deputy Wheeler could not transport Williams because he had a K-9 Unit in his patrol
vehicle.
5
On July 2, 2013, Williams appeared before the Clayton County Magistrate Court for a
preliminary hearing on the 113 counts that were filed against him following the traffic stop of
3
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 4 of 12
burnt marijuana” coming from the vehicle. 6 Deputy Hoe observed Williams
“trying to put” money into “his right pocket, front pocket.” To Deputy Wheeler,
Williams appeared “very nervous” and “couldn’t control his hands.” When the
deputies asked Williams to leave his vehicle, Williams initially refused and was
“reaching throughout the vehicle . . . for items.” The deputies eventually “help[ed]
him out” of the vehicle.
After removing Williams from the vehicle, the deputies handcuffed and
searched him. The search revealed $3,500 in cash in his pocket. Then, while
Deputy Hoe was securing Williams in his patrol vehicle, Williams told him that he
had a firearm near the driver’s seat of his vehicle. Deputy Hoe informed Deputy
Wheeler, who located the firearm and then performed a search of the car, including
the trunk, ostensibly as an inventory search. 7 The search of the vehicle uncovered
a few thousand dollars in cash, a loaded handgun, more than twelve pre-paid debit
cards, a laptop computer, two iPhones, and a Samsung phone.8 Williams’ vehicle
was then towed to the Clayton County Sheriff’s Office.
June 13. In the hearing, Deputy Wheeler testified that he could “smell marijuana coming from
the vehicle” as he spoke with Williams.
6
Deputy Hoe testified that he was “[v]ery unlikely” to misidentify the smell of
marijuana.
7
Deputy Wheeler permitted Williams to call someone to pick up his car so that it would
not need to be impounded. He called his cousin who lived in Atlanta, but she never arrived.
8
While the deputies conducted the search of his vehicle, Williams broke the window of
the patrol vehicle and fled on foot. The officers quickly apprehended him.
4
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 5 of 12
B.
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) sought to use the pre-paid gift and
debit cards discovered through the searches—along with evidence discovered on
the laptop and cell phones recovered in the 2013 search—against Williams. On
July 5, 2016, based in part on the evidence seized from the searches, a grand jury
in Tallahassee, Florida issued a fourteen-count indictment against Williams for a
scheme in which he fraudulently filed and cashed the tax returns of unsuspecting
individuals. The indictment alleged that Williams committed twelve counts of
theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641–42, and two counts of aggravated
identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
Williams was arrested on July 15, 2016 in Minnesota. He appeared before
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, with counsel present.
The District Court ordered Williams detained until a hearing was held on July 20,
2016. At the hearing, the District Court set bond at $25,000 and ordered him
removed to Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, where the indictment was
issued. On the day of the hearing, Williams was released after signing an “Order
Setting Conditions of Release” which, among other things, prohibited him from
“violat[ing] any federal, state, or local law while on release.” Williams was
5
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 6 of 12
ordered to appear before the District Court for the Northern District of Florida on
August 8, 2016.
On July 29, not long after his release, an arrest warrant was issued for
Williams because he violated his conditions of release by being arrested in
Aventura, Florida for battery on law enforcement, escape, resisting arrest without
violence, and credit card fraud. He was arrested on August 8, 2016. On the day of
his arrest, Williams appeared with counsel before a Magistrate Judge. The
Magistrate Judge ordered him detained until a detention hearing could be held on
August 12.9 Williams also pled not guilty to the grand jury charges, and a trial was
scheduled for September 12, 2016. However, the District Court later granted a
continuance and rescheduled the trial for November 14, 2016.
Before trial, Williams moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the
searches of his vehicle in 2011 and 2013 in an effort to destroy the foundation of
the charges against him. He contended that the Deputies Wheeler and Hoe
conducted the inventory of his vehicle in 2013 as a pretext for an investigative
search. He further argued that the odor of marijuana, without more, did not create
probable cause to search the car for evidence of criminal activity. Williams also
9
In the hearing held on August 12, the Magistrate Judge found “probable cause to believe
that [Williams] committed several . . . felony crimes while on pre-trial release” and revoked his
conditional release. It thus ordered that Williams remain detained pending trial. Williams
moved to revoke the detention order on September 12, 2016. The District Court denied the
motion because Williams “demonstrated that he is unwilling to abide by conditions of release
and is unlikely to do so if he were again released.”
6
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 7 of 12
claimed that the officer who patted him down in 2011 did not have grounds to
suspect that he was armed and dangerous.
The Government responded to the suppression motion on November 7. 10 It
argued that the officers in 2011 and 2013 had probable cause to search the vehicle
because “the smell of marijuana alone justifies the search of the vehicle from
which it emanates.” In the alternative, the Government claimed that the deputies in
2013 followed protocol when they inventoried Williams’ vehicle after his arrest.
The hearing on the motion to suppress occurred on November 14. In the
hearing, the District Court heard testimony and argument on each suppression
claim. As to the 2011 search, the District Court framed the factual issue as
whether Officer Cutcliffe in fact detected the odor of marijuana coming from
Williams’ vehicle. It found Officer Cutcliffe’s testimony to be credible and thus
held that he had probable cause to search the car.11
10
The Government also moved to continue the trial because the suppression hearing was
scheduled for the same day as the trial, November 14, 2016, and Williams indicated that he
would plead guilty if his motion to suppress did not succeed. The District Court granted the
continuance.
11
However, the District Court granted the motion to suppress as to the credit cards that
Officer Cutcliffe retrieved from Williams’ pocket. First, the District Court found that the Officer
Cutcliffe did not have reason to suspect that the credit cards were weapons or other illicit goods
and therefore could not reach into the pocket. Second, the District Court determined that Officer
Cutcliffe did not have probable cause to search Williams for evidence of marijuana because
Officer Cutcliffe “had no recollection that Mr. Williams himself smelled of marijuana.”
Therefore, the District Court granted the motion to suppress as to the 2011 search of Williams’
person.
7
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 8 of 12
The District Court upheld the 2013 search on the ground that Officer
Wheeler had probable cause that “contraband or evidence of a crime could be
found in the vehicle.” In reaching this determination, the District Court credited
Officer Hoe’s testimony as to the smell of marijuana in the vehicle and summed up
the situation as follows: “Mr. Williams was stopped for speeding. His vehicle
reeked of marijuana. When he exited the vehicle to be arrested, he was found to be
carrying more than three thousand dollars in cash and acknowledged that he had a
loaded firearm in the vehicle.” Given these facts, the District Court concluded that
Officer Wheeler had probable cause to search Williams’ vehicle. 12 Thus, the
District Court denied the motion to suppress the evidence from the searches of
Williams’ vehicle in 2011 and 2013, but granted the motion as to the search of his
pocket in 2011. 13
On appeal, Williams argues that the 2013 search was an improper and
pretextual inventory search—even though the District Court held that the search
12
The District Court, however, held that the inventory search did not provide an
alternative basis for upholding the search of Williams’ vehicle because the testimony suggested
that “the decision to impound the car was based on the suspicion of evidence of criminal activity
as opposed to simply conducting an inventory search.”
13
On December 22, 2016, after the District Court denied his motion to suppress,
Williams pled guilty to each count of the grand jury indictment. However, the plea agreement
permitted him to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On April 28, 2017, Williams filed
his amended notice of appeal challenging the denial of the motion to suppress.
8
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 9 of 12
could not be justified as an inventory search. 14 He contends that it is irrelevant
whether Deputies Wheeler and Hoe smelled marijuana because they decided to
impound and inventory the vehicle. The Government replies that the officers had
probable cause to search the vehicle because they smelled marijuana.
Alternatively, the government argues that the officers performed a valid inventory
search.
II.
When we review a denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and its applications of law de novo,
construing the facts in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed below.
United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256, 1274 (11th Cir. 2013). We accept the
credibility determinations of the fact finder, unless they are “contrary to the laws of
nature” or “so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable fact finder
could accept [them].” United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234, 1255–56 (11th Cir.
2015) (quoting United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir.
2002)).
The present case concerns the warrantless search of a vehicle. In general,
such a warrantless search is per se unreasonable. United States v. Bradley, 644
F.3d 1213, 1262 (11th Cir. 2011). As an exception, however, law enforcement
14
In his brief on appeal, Williams stated that the District Court erred in denying his
motion to suppress and recited facts but did not raise any arguments as to the 2011 search.
9
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 10 of 12
may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if it is operational and there is
probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. See United
States v. Tamari, 454 F.3d 1259, 1261–62 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Watts,
329 F.3d 1282, 1285–86 (11th Cir. 2003). To determine whether probable cause
exists, we perform an objective analysis that does not account for the subjective
beliefs of law enforcement. United States v. Franklin, 694 F.3d 1, 9 (11h Cir.
2012).
In a long line of cases, we have held that the smell of marijuana coming
from a person’s house or vehicle establishes probable cause for a search. See
Merricks v. Adkisson, 785 F.3d 553, 560 n.3 (11th Cir. 2015); United States v.
Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc); United States v. Rivera,
595 F.2d 1095, 1098–99 (5th Cir. 1979); see also United States v. Johns, 469 U.S.
478, 482, 105 S. Ct. 881, 884 (1985). It is irrelevant if an inventory search
occurred as a pretext for gathering evidence where the police officers already had
probable cause that justified the search. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806,
811–12, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1773 (1996).
We take the 2011 and 2013 searches in turn. As to the 2011 search, the
District Court credited Officer Cutcliffe’s testimony that he smelled marijuana
emanating from the vehicle. We find no reason to overturn this determination.
Therefore, since Officer Cutcliffe smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle, he
10
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 11 of 12
had probable cause to search it. The District Court thus did not err in denying the
motion to suppress as to the 2011 search.
With respect to the 2013 search, the District Court credited the testimony of
Deputy Hoe. It made the following finding of fact.
Mr. Williams after being stopped was—appeared nervous
and was engaged in furtive movements such that Officer
Wheeler felt compelled to ask Officer Hoe to come
around to the driver’s side door. Whereupon, Officer
Wheeler testified [at the preliminary hearing that he
smelled marijuana]. But as corroborated . . . here in open
court, the hearsay [of Officer Wheeler] is consistent with
sworn testimony of Officer Hoe; namely, that he smelled
marijuana as well.
The District Court also found that the deputies discovered $3,500 in cash on
Williams’ person and that Williams told the deputies he had a firearm in his car.
The District Court thus summarized the situation as follows: “we have a car that
reeks of marijuana, somebody that’s armed, somebody that’s got several thousand
dollars of cash, and somebody that’s nervous and engaged in furtive movements in
the car.” There is no reason to overturn these factual findings.
Contrary to Williams’ contentions, a pretextual inventory of a vehicle is
irrelevant if the deputies possessed probable cause to believe that the vehicle
contained evidence of a crime. Whren, 517 U.S. at 811–12, 116 S. Ct. at 1773.
The smell of marijuana, furtive movements, indication of a firearm, and $3,500 in
cash clearly established probable cause for the deputies to search Williams’ vehicle
11
Case: 17-11843 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 12 of 12
for evidence. Rivera, 595 F.2d at 1099 (“It is well settled that detection of the odor
of marijuana furnishes probable cause to search a vehicle.”). Therefore, we agree
with that the search fell under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
AFFIRMED.
12