Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02218/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dwight Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

U{lited States Court of Appe11ls 

Tenth Cir;."Uit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR - 2 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

DWIGHT JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2218 

(D.C. No. 88-149-2-CR) 

(D.N.M.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, TACHA, Circuit Judge, and VAN 

BEBBER, District Judge.** 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Dwight Jackson appeals his conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of 

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 84l(a)(l) and 

84l(b)(l)(D), and 18 u.s.c. section 2. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 1 
On February 11, 1988, border patrol agent Bernie Velasquez 

stopped Jackson and Warrick at an immigration checkpoint located 

on Interstate 10 west of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Jackson was 

driving a 1983 Datsun 280Z, and Warrick was the sole passenger. 

Agent Velasquez asked Jackson and Warrick about their citizenship 

and they replied that they were United States citizens. 

Velasquez, who had training in narcotics smuggling, noticed a 

strong smell of air freshener and baby powder coming from the 

interior of the car. Persons with narcotics training know that 

these substances are used to mask the distinct smell of marijuana. 

Velasquez asked the defendants who owned the car and Jackson 

replied that it belonged to his girlfriend. At this point traffic 

was backing up so Velasquez asked Jackson to drive over to a 

secondary detention area to confirm the car's ownership and 

registration. 

At the secondary detention area Velasquez continued 

conversing with Warrick while another agent radioed in the car's 

license number to verify that the car was not stolen. Velasquez 

noticed the smell of burned marijuana on Warrick's breath, and 

that Warrick's hands shook and he stuttered as he searched for the 

vehicle's registration papers. Velasquez also noticed that 

Jackson was nervous. Although the car was parked, Jackson had his 

hands gripped tightly on the wheel and refused to make eye contact 

with Velasquez and looked straight ahead as Velasquez questioned 

him. 

At this point Velasquez asked Jackson and Warrick to exit the 

car so that he --could search it. Warrick tried to take a blue 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 2 
? 

denim bag with him, but Velasquez asked him to leave the bag in 

the car. Inside the bag Velasquez found $7,500 in cash, cocaine 

or metamphetamines, and a gram scale with a white powdery residue. 

Near the passenger seat he found a plastic bag containing 

marijuana. In the hatchback area he found a gym bag containing 

marijuana, and in the spare tire compartment he found 15 pounds of 

marijuana packaged in trash bags and covered with a layer of baby 

powder. 

Jackson argues that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion to suppress evidence on two grounds: (1) Velasquez 

unlawfully detained the car after confirming the United States 

citizenship of the defendants, and (2) Velasquez did not have 

probable cause to search the car. When reviewing a denial of a 

motion to suppress evidence, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party and will uphold the denial 

unless it is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Johnson, 895 

F.2d 698, __ (10th Cir. 1990). 

Jackson's first argument is that after Velasquez confirmed 

the United States citizenship of the defendants he had fulfilled 

the purpose for the immigration checkpoint and could not inquire 

further about the car's ownership or further detain the 

defendants. In a decision involving the very same immigration 

checkpoint as our case, we rejected the defendant's contention 

that "[c]ustoms agents are authorized only to make limited 

inquiries at checkpoint stops relative to citizenship and that 

they are not authorized to inquire about the ownership of a 

vehicle which is driven into the checkpoint.'' Johnson, 895 F.2d 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 3 
' 

at In Johnson, agents asked the driver and passenger about 

their citizenship, and they both claimed to be U.S. citizens. The 

agent detected the smell of alcohol and thought that the 

appearance of the occupants was inconsistent with their claim that 

they owned the car, a 1987 Fiero. Suspecting that the car might 

be stolen, the agent asked the driver for a vehicle registration. 

When he failed to produce one, the agent directed the driver to 

the secondary inspection area for a computerized ownership check. 

The Johnson court found these circumstances constituted reasonable 

suspicion justifying the secondary detention to confirm that the 

car was not stolen. 

The strong smell of air freshener and baby powder coming from 

the interior of the car gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that 

Jackson had committed or was committing a crime. See Terry v. 

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) . Therefore Agent Velasquez lawfully could 

detain Jackson by requesting that he drive the car to the 

secondary detention area for further invesigation. Asking 

questions about travel plans, destination, and demanding proof of 

car registration are lawful routine informational questions under 

Terry~ Ohio. See Johnson, 895 F.2d at 

The trial court ruled that Velasquez had probable cause to 

search the car based on the strong odor of air freshener and baby 

powder emitting the car and the nervous behavior of Jackson and 

Warrick in the secondary detention area. We agree. See United 

States~ Lopez, 777 F.2d 543, 551 (10th Cir. 1985) (ether odor 

masking cocaine). After reviewing the evidence in the light most 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 4 
favorable to the government, we find that the trial court's denial 

of the motion to suppress evidence was not clearly erroneous. 

The second basis for Jackson's appeal is that the trial court 

erred by refusing to sever his trial from the trial of his 

codefendant Warrick. 

We review the trial curt's denial of a motion to sever for 

abuse of discretion. See United States~ Peveto, 881 F.2d 844, 

857 (10th Cir. 1989). The trial court must weigh the prejudice to 

a particular defendant caused by joinder against important 

considerations of judicial economy. Severance may be necessary 

when the defenses are so antagonistic that they are mutually 

exclusive. However, one defendant's attempt to cast blame on 

another does not require severance. Rather, the .conflict between 

codefendants must be so intense that there ~s a danger the jury 

will unjustifiably infer from the conflict alone that both 

defendants are guilty. The defendant must demonstrate that 

acceptance of one party's defense would tend to preclude the 

acquittal of the other, or that the guilt of one defendant tends 

to establish the innocence of the other. Id. 

At trial Warrick's defense was that the marijuana in his gym 

bag was for his personal use, that he did not know of the 15 

pounds of marijuana hidden in the wheel well, and that Jackson had 

the opportunity to put the marijuana there while he was 

"servicing'' the car in Odessa, Texas. Jackson's defense was that 

Warrick was solely responsible for the marijuana in the gym bag 

and in the trunk. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 5 
• 

Based on these facts, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it denied Jackson's motion for severance. Unlike 

the siutation in Peveto, the defenses presented by Jackson and 

Warrick at trial were merely conflicting, not irreconcilable. See 

United States v. McClure, 743 F.2d 484, 488 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Jackson's third ground for appeal is that the evidence 

presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. We 

find that based upon this record a reasonable jury could have 

found Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession with 

intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2218 Document: 01019970751 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 6