Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14899/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14899-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Desean Session
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14899

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cr-00014-RH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER DESEAN SESSION,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(May 10, 2016)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-14899 Date Filed: 05/10/2016 Page: 1 of 4
2

Christopher Session appeals his convictions for possessing a firearm as a 

convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), possessing with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 

(b)(1)(D), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of his drug crime, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Session appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs 

and firearm discovered during a warrantless search of his vehicle. We affirm. 

The district court did not err by denying Session’s motion to suppress. 

Officer Maddox stopped Session for a traffic violation. As Maddox approached

Session’s vehicle, he detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana and observed that 

the occupants of the vehicle were extremely nervous. Although Maddox and two 

other officers failed to mention the smell of marijuana in their written reports, 

Maddox testified about the odor at the pre-trial hearing, and the district court 

credited his testimonial account. We defer to the district court’s credibility

determination because it was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams, 

731 F.3d 1222, 1230 (11th Cir. 2013). We have previously held that the

recognizable smell of marijuana gives rise to probable cause supporting a 

warrantless search. See United States v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1982); 

see also United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 15-14899 Date Filed: 05/10/2016 Page: 2 of 4
3

Moreover, while the district court permissibly found probable cause based 

on the smell of marijuana alone, Officer Maddox further recounted that Session 

opened his center console to produce his insurance and exposed what Officer

Maddox perceived were currency and plastic bags filled with “orange, yellowish” 

pills. This only added to the already-existing probable cause.

Though Maddox could have lawfully searched the vehicle after smelling 

marijuana, he first went to his patrol car in an effort to allow the occupants of 

Session’s vehicle to calm down since Maddox perceived them to be nervous. 

Maddox also returned to his car to run a background check. When he returned to 

Session’s vehicle, Maddox learned by radio that an outstanding warrant existed for 

Session’s arrest. Maddox and a second backup officer arrested Session based on 

the warrant. They then searched Session’s vehicle and discovered currency and 

drugs in the center console, and a firearm, two clips of ammunition, and additional 

currency in the glove compartment. The fact that Maddox did not search the 

vehicle immediately did not affect the existence of probable cause, as a legitimate

reason for the time lapse existed. Because the search was conducted based on 

probable cause, the officers were not required to obtain a warrant before seizing 

the drugs, firearm, and ammunition from Session’s vehicle. See United States v. 

Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 2163 (1982).

USCA11 Case: 15-14899 Date Filed: 05/10/2016 Page: 3 of 4
4

We AFFIRM Session’s convictions.

USCA11 Case: 15-14899 Date Filed: 05/10/2016 Page: 4 of 4