Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01019/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shameris Lashawn Jefferson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1019

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Shameris Lashawn Jefferson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: September 23, 2016

 Filed: November 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Shameris Jefferson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine,

a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 48

Appellate Case: 16-1019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Entry ID: 4466458 
months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. He appeals from the district

court’s1

 denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

A clerk working at a St. Charles, Missouri, hotel reported to law enforcement

officers that a guest had been acting suspiciously, had registered to stay for only one

night, and had paid in cash. After identifying the suspicious person as Jefferson,

officers began surveillance on him.

Jefferson left the hotel, taking a taxi to a home-improvement store in Bridgeton,

Missouri. After he left the store, he entered the passenger’s side of a red pickup truck

that was occupied by his codefendant, Richard Williams. Williams drove to a location

in St. Louis, where the two men entered a residence and stayed for approximately one

hour before returning to the St. Charles hotel in Williams’s truck. Jefferson exited the

truck, entered the hotel, and returned to the parking lot shortly thereafter. Jefferson

entered the driver’s seat of a grey car and followed Williams’s red truck as they drove

away from the hotel. With officers pursuing in unmarked vehicles, Jefferson and

Williams began driving erratically, eventually parting ways.

Jefferson pulled into a parking lot of a high school, circling the lot three times

before parking in an empty space. St. Louis County Detective Joseph Brandt parked

near Jefferson and exited his vehicle as Jefferson rolled down his window. Detective

Brandt smelled raw marijuana, waited for another officer to arrive, and then ordered

Jefferson out of the car. Detective Brandt then deployed his drug dog, which alerted

to the presence of controlled substances. Officers searched Jefferson’s car and seized

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, III, then Chief United States Magistrate Judge for

the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Entry ID: 4466458 
cocaine, marijuana, $6,500 cash, a cell phone, and some documents. Following the

district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, Jefferson pleaded guilty, reserving

his right to appeal from the denial of the motion to suppress.

“We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, but we review

de novo its determination that the Fourth Amendment was not violated.” United

States v. Pile, 820 F.3d 314, 316 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing United States v.

Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir. 2004)). “The Fourth Amendment ‘is not

triggered by a consensual encounter between an officer and a private citizen.’” United

States v. Aquino, 674 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. VillaGonzalez, 623 F.3d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 2010)). The following non-exclusive factors

may render an encounter between an officer and a private citizen non-consensual:

[o]fficers positioning themselves in a way to limit the person’s freedom

of movement, the presence of several officers, the display of weapons by

officers, physical touching, the use of language or intonation indicating

compliance is necessary, the officer’s retention of the person’s property,

or an officer’s indication the person is the focus of a particular

investigation.

Id. (quoting United States v. Griffith, 533 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2008)).

The initial encounter between Detective Brandt and Jefferson did not implicate

the Fourth Amendment. The record supports the district court’s finding that when

parking next to Jefferson, Detective Brandt did not position his vehicle in such a way

as to limit Jefferson’s freedom of movement and that Jefferson then rolled down his

window without being ordered to do so, voluntarily releasing the scent of raw

marijuana. There were only one or two officers near Jefferson at the time, Detective

Brandt was not displaying his weapon, and there is no evidence that he touched or

spoke to Jefferson. The initial interaction between Brandt and Jefferson did not

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Entry ID: 4466458 
implicate the Fourth Amendment, because the encounter was consensual in nature. 

Upon smelling marijuana, Detective Brandt had reasonable suspicion to investigate

further, see United States v. Scott, 818 F.3d 424, 428 (8th Cir. 2016), and after the

drug dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances, the officers had probable

cause to search Jefferson’s car, see United States v. Gonzalez, 781 F.3d 422, 429 (8th

Cir. 2015). In light of this holding, we need not reach the district court’s alternative

conclusion that probable cause supported a traffic stop.

The judgment is affirmed.

___________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 16-1019 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Entry ID: 4466458