Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02277/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Eugene Morin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RONNIE EUGENE MORIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

•s .. -, -D F l L .bj c Ap~ab 

U · ted States Co~rt <?1 r nl Tenth Circuit 

MOV O 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2277 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CR 90-315 JP) 

Presiliano Torrez (William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and 

Tara C. Neda, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the brief), Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Penni Adrian, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for DefendantAppellant. 

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 1 
Ronnie Eugene Morin was charged in a one-count indictment 

with unlawfully possessing less than fifty kilograms of marijuana, 

a Schedule I controlled substance, with an intent to distribute 

it, in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 841(a)(l) and 21 u.s.c. § 

84l(b)(l)(D). Prior to trial, Morin moved to suppress the use at 

trial of the marijuana taken from him and also moved to suppress 

the use at trial of any statements made by him to the arresting 

officers. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied 

that motion. Morin then entered a conditional plea of guilty, 

reserving his right to have appellate review of the district 

court's order denying his motion to suppress. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

ll(a)(2). Morin was thereafter sentenced to twenty-four months 

imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. 

Morin appeals therefrom. 

At the evidentiary hearing on Morin's motion to suppress, the 

government called one witness, James Richard Sheridan, Jr., an 

officer with the Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department. Morin 

did not testify at the hearing, nor did he call any witness in his 

behalf. 

Sheridan testified that he was a "narcotics detective" and 

that his current assignment was to "work public transportation," 

including "train terminals," looking for drug violations. He 

stated that a fellow police officer told him that he had received 

a tip from an anonymous informant that a person had boarded an 

Amtrak train in Flagstaff, Arizona, bound for Boston, 

Massachusetts, who "may be carrying narcotics." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 2 
More specifically, the informant told Sheridan's fellow 

officer that the individual in question was a 5'10" white male, 

weighing around 200 pounds, that he was balding, and wearing a 

brownish-gray T-shirt with an "8th Street Tavern" logo on the back 

of the shirt. The informant further stated that this person had 

purchased a one-way ticket to Boston with cash, and that he 

personally carried onto the train three bags, "nylon-type soft 

side," one blue-green, one black and one burgundy color. 

Sheridan testified that he and a different fellow officer 

"met" the Amtrak train when it came through Albuquerque en route 

to Boston, looking for a person who fit the description given by 

the informant. Sheridan stated that he and his fellow officer 

were on the train when they espied an individual standing on the 

station platform who fit the description, logo and all. The 

individual was looking at some jewelry, which was being sold on 

the platform by local vendors, and was also "scanning" the crowd. 

The individual thus observed boarded the train and proceeded 

towards a compartment on the lower level, which the officers 

thought to be "abnormal to most single travelers. 111 Based, then, 

on the fact that the individual fit the description given by the 

informant, plus the fact that the individual seemed to be 

"scanning" the crowd on the station platform, coupled with the 

additional fact that he was seated in an area on the train where 

single passengers generally would not be seated, Sheridan 

1 Officer Sheridan stated that the passenger coach had a lower 

level consisting of compartments, where families and handicapped 

persons generally sat, and an upper level, where singles generally 

sat. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 3 
testified that he thought he had enough "probable cause" to at 

least ask the individual if he was carrying any narcotics. 

The individual thus observed was Morin. As the train pulled 

out of the Albuquerque station, Officer Sheridan, in the vestibule 

area outside the lower compartment, engaged in conversation with 

Morin. First, Sheridan identified himself and showed Morin his 

badge and then asked if he could see Morin's ticket. Morin 

exhibited his ticket with his name on it. Sheridan then asked for 

some identification, and Morin produced a copy of his birth 

certificate. The information on Morin's certificate matched the 

information on his Amtrak ticket and both were returned to him. 

Sheridan next informed Morin that he had received a tip that 

Morin might be carrying contraband. Morin showed Sheridan where 

he was seated, and Sheridan then asked if he was carrying any 

baggage. Morin pointed to a burgundy colored bag on an overhead 

rack above his seat. Sheridan asked Morin if he could search the 

bag, and, according to Sheridan, Morin consented. Sheridan's 

fellow officer entered the compartment occupied by Morin and 

retrieved the burgundy colored bag. He also informed Sheridan 

that he had detected an odor of marijuana emanating from somewhere 

near the doorway to the compartment., 

A search of the burgundy colored bag revealed no contraband. 

Prompted by his fellow officers' report of the odor of marijuana 

near the doorway to the compartment, Sheridan entered the 

compartment, where, just inside, was a luggage rack on which were 

two soft-side nylon bags, one a blue-green color and the other 

black, and an army duffel bag, which bore an identification tag. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 4 
There was no identification tag on either of the nylon bags. 

Sheridan stated that he, too, detected a strong odor of marijuana. 

He first picked up the duffel bag, and after squeezing and 

smelling it determined there was no marijuana in the bag. Officer 

Sheridan was informed that the duffel bag belonged to a passenger 

in the upper compartment. He then pulled the blue-green nylon bag 

towards him and "the Velcro fastener which covers the zipper. 

pulled apart [and] out popped a greenish plastic bag with what 

appeared to me to be a marijuana stem sticking right through it." 

At this point Sheridan placed Morin under arrest and advised him 

of his Miranda rights. Sheridan at the same time took possession 

of the nylon bags, although neither was apparently opened at that 

particular moment. The only statement made by Morin at this point 

in time was that neither the blue-green nor the black nylon bag 

belonged to him. 

The two officers and Morin left the train at Lamy, New 

Mexico, and were driven back to Albuquerque by the officer who had 

received the initial tip. During the course of the trip back to 

Albuquerque, Morin admitted that the marijuana in the blue-green 

bag was his. 2 The bags were later searched at police headquarters 

in Albuquerque, and 42 pounds of marijuana were seized. 

In denying Morin's motion to suppress, the district court 

held that the initial encounter between the police officers and 

2 Counsel's position, in the district court and on appeal, is 

that Morin's statements were the "fruit of the poisonous tree." 

Counsel concedes that if we determine that there was no "poisonous 

tree," i.e., no illegal detention, there is no basis for 

challenging Morin's statements to the Albuquerque police. Nardone 

v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 5 
Morin in the vestibule of the train was consensual in nature, as 

was the search of the burgundy colored nylon bag which Morin had 

identified as his. 

black nylon bags 

As concerns the seizure of the blue-green and 

from the luggage rack in the compartment where 

Morin had his seat, the district court held that such was based on 

probable cause, consisting of, inter alia, the strong odor of 

marijuana in the vicinity of the two bags and Sheridan's visual 

observation of marijuana sticking out of the blue-green nylon bag. 

The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed by us under 

the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Werking, 915 

F.2d 1404, 1406 (10th Cir. 1990) and United States v. SotoOrnelas, 863 F.2d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir. 1988). In our view, the 

district court's denial of Morin's motion to suppress is not 

clearly erroneous. 

As indicated, the only evidentiary matter before the district 

court was Officer Sheridan's narration of events. Clearly his 

testimony shows that the initial questioning of Morin was with the 

latter's consent. Morin also consented to the search of his 

burgundy colored nylon bag, which is not surprising, since there 

was no contraband in that particular bag. While retrieving the 

burgundy colored nylon bag from an upper rack in the compartment, 

Sheridan's fellow officer indicated that he had detected a strong 

odor of marijuana in and around the doorway to the compartment. 

After searching the burgundy bag, Sheridan decided to check this 

out, and he, too, detected the smell of marijuana, and then, when 

he pulled the blue-green nylon bag toward him he saw marijuana. 

Certainly there was probable cause at that point to seize the 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 6 
blue-green and black nylon bags. This court has long recognized 

that marijuana has a distinct smell and that the odor of marijuana 

alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a 

vehicle or baggage. United States v. Merryman, 630 F.2d 780, 785 

(10th Cir. 1980); United States v. Sperow, 551 F.2d 808, 811 (10th 

Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 930 (1977); United States v. 

Bowman, 487 F.2d 1229, 1231 (10th Cir. 1973). And of course, at 

that point in time, Morin stated that those particular bags were 

not his and belonged to someone else. 

A consensual encounter between police and a private citizen 

occurs when there is voluntary cooperation by the private citizen 

in response to non-coercive questioning by the police officer. 

United States v. Werking, 915 F.2d 1404, 1407 (10th Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir. 1986); 

United States v. Cooper, 733 F.2d 1360, 1363 (10th Cir. 1984), 

cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255 (1984). We agree that Sheridan's 

encounter with Morin was consensual in nature in its inception, 

and that it continued to be such up to the point where the 

burgundy colored nylon bag was examined and found to contain no 

contraband. 

Counsel's position is that Officer Sheridan should have 

stopped his investigation of Morin after the initial encounter in 

the vestibule, and that "every event which followed occurred 

during a period of illegal detention." Based upon the "totality 

of the circumstances" test, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 

(1983), Officer Sheridan did have probable cause to continue 

questioning Mr. Morin. Even though the tip received by the 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 7 
Albuquerque police department was anonymous, when combined with 

the observed behavior of the defendant on the platform; the fact 

he was seated in an area where single passengers are not normally 

seated; and the eventual discovery of the odor of marijuana on the 

train, it was not unreasonable for the officer to continue his 

investigation. After the smell of marijuana was detected, there 

was clearly probable cause to detain the luggage. 3 

United States v. Johnston, 497 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1974), is 

similar to the present case. There the defendant purchased a oneway Amtrak ticket from San Diego to New York. He also carried his 

luggage onto the train rather than checking it. There the 

narcotics agent, having been advised of the foregoing by Amtrak 

officials, boarded the train and commenced observation of the 

defendant. Bending down, the agents sniffed the strong odor of 

marijuana coming from defendant's suitcases, whereupon, without 

warrant or consent, the agents forced open the suitcases and 

discovered marijuana. In upholding the district court's denial of 

defendant's motion to suppress, the Ninth Circuit rejected 

defendant's argument that he had a reasonable expectation of 

privacy from drug agents with "inquisitive nostrils." In 

Johnston, the Ninth Circuit also held that the forced opening of 

3 In United States v. Scoles, 903 F.2d 765, 768 (10th Cir. 

1990), we stated that even without a search warrant or probable 

cause and exigent circumstances, law enforcement authorities 

having a "reasonable suspicion" that a piece of luggage contains 

narcotics may detain the luggage at least briefly to investigate 

the circumstances giving rise to such suspicion if the detention 

is properly limited in its scope. Here the officers had probable 

cause and there were exigent circumstances, i.e., a moving train, 

which justified a taking of the blue-green and black nylon bags. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 8 
defendant's luggage was based on both probable cause (odor of 

marijuana) and exigent circumstances (the train was about to leave 

the station). 

In support of the foregoing, see also the recent case of 

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S._, 115 L.Ed.2d 389, 111 S. Ct. 

_ (1991), where the Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme 

Court and held that the Florida Supreme Court erred in adopting a 

per se rule that every "encounter" between a police officer and a 

private citizen on a public bus was a "seizure" within the meaning 

of the Fourth .Amendment. Thus, the fact that in the instant case 

the police officers initiated their contact with Morin on a train 

from which Morin may not have felt "free to leave" does not in 

itself result in a "seizure." Under Bostick, the "totality of the 

circumstances" determines whether, and at what point in time, 

there is a "seizure". Where the encounter takes place is only one 

of many considerations. 

We agree with the district court that the police officers 

violated none of Morin's Fourth Amendment rights. They were at a 

place where they had a right to be, i.e., the aisle of a railway 

car, and such is true even if there had been no anonymous tip. 

There was probable cause to question Morin, and Morin voluntarily 

engaged in conversation with the officers and produced his birth 

certificate to establish his identity. He clearly gave his 

consent to search the burgundy colored bag, which contained no 

contraband. They detected the odor of marijuana emanating from a 

piece of luggage bearing no identification. When Officer Sheridan 

pulled the luggage towards himself, it "pulled apart" and he 

-9-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 9 
observed what he believed to be marijuana. Morin was not asked to 

give his consent to a search of the other two bags, which he 

stated were not his. In short, the tree was not poisoned and 

hence there could be no tainted fruit, be it marijuana or his 

confession. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939). 

Judgment affirmed. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 90-2277 Document: 010110096862 Date Filed: 11/08/1991 Page: 10