# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 27 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro ck y Tho m as Mayfiel d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 16 , 20 16
Fil ed : J an ua ry

27 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re KELLY and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and MAGNUSON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

R o c k y Tho m as Mayfiel d was co nv ic te d by a jury of co ns pi racy to di st ri b u t e

an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ham phe ta m ine

, tw o co un ts of po ss es si on wit h

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es D ist rict Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, an d o ne co un t o f be in g a fel on in po ss es si on

of a f i r e a r m. Th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Mayfiel d to 24 0 m on th s on each of th e 2

dr u g c h a r g e s an d 12 0 m on th s on th e fir earm co nv ic ti on , al l se nt en ces to ru n

co nc ur ren t. Mayfie l d ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it de ni ed hi s

m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed as a res ul t of a ve hi cl e se a r c h an d a se arch of a
ho te l ro om . Fin di ng no erro r, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Feb ru ar y 2 0 1 5

, Ro ck y Mayfiel d was rid in g in a car in Bert ho ld

, Nor th

Dak ot a, in th e m id dl e of th e da y

. The car cau gh t th e at te nt i o n o f O f fic er All en

S c h mi d t, th e Ch ie f of Po li ce of th e Bert ho ld Po li ce Dep art m en t, be cau se it d i d n o t

ha ve a fro nt li cen se pl at e. As Offi cer Sch m id t fo ll owe d t he car, h e n ot ic ed th at th e

ve hi cl e al so ha d n o re ar l ic en se pl at e an d s aw th e car cro ss th e cen te r di vi di ng li ne

. Bas ed on th es e in frac ti on s, Offi cer S ch m id t i ni ti at ed a tr affi c st op

. 3

The dr iv er of th e car was Tin a Gan le y

. Osc ar Delg ad o was se at ed in th e fro nt

pa ss en ge r se at

, an d Mayfiel d was se at ed in th e ba ck pa ss en ge r se at

. Offi cer Sch m id t

te st ifi ed at a he ari ng on Mayfiel d’s m ot io n to su pp res s th at he no ti c ed Mayfiel d

“ m ov in g aro un d fu rti ve ly in th e ba ck se at ” as Sch m id t ap pr oa ch ed th e car. Offi cer
Sch m id t te s t i f

ie d th at whe n he reac he d th e dr iv er’s si de win do w an d be nt do wn to

ta lk to Gan le y , he “ im m ed ia te ly no ti ce d a n o d o r of m ari juan a co m in g fro m th e

ve hi cl e.” Due to th e sm el l of m ari juan a an d hi s ob se rv at io n th at Gan le y was

un us ua ll y ne rv ou s an d ha d di la te d pu pi ls

, Offi cer Sch m id t— who ha d be en tra in ed in

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 2

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.
Mayfiel d do es no t ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th e in it ia l st op

. See Uni te d St at es 3

v. Bel l, 86 F.3 d 82 0, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [A]ny tra ffi c vi ol at io n, ev en a m in or on e, gi ve s an off

ic er p ro ba bl e cau se to st op th e v io la to r.”).

-2

-na rco ti cs de te ct io n— su sp ect ed Gan le y was un de r th e i n f lu en ce of dr ug s. He

ret rie ve d id en ti fic at io n fro m each pe rs on in t h e car an d ch eck ed fo r ou ts ta nd in g

warra nt s. He fo un d n on e.

Offi cer Sch m id t ret ur ne d to th e car an d rem ov ed Gan le y , who be cam e ve rb al ly

ag gr es si ve an d ag it at ed

, bo ls te rin g Offi cer Sch m id t’s be li ef th at sh e m ay be un de r th e

in flu en ce of na rco ti cs . W hi le sp eak in g t o Gan le y at th e rear of th e ve hi cl e, Offi cer
Sch m id t no ti ced Mayfiel d, st il l in th e ba ck p a s se ng er se at

, “ was be nd in g do wn

to ward s th e flo or a n d mo v i n g aro un d qu it e a lo t,” whi ch m ad e Offi cer Sch m id t

su sp ic io us an d co nc ern ed fo r hi s sa fet y

. Offi cer Sch m id t rem ov ed bo th m en fro m th e

ve hi cl e an d pe rfo rm ed an ov er-t he -cl ot he s pa t-d own on each

. Upo n de te ct in g “ ve ry

la rg e bu lg es ” in Mayfiel d’s po ck et s, O f f ic er Sch m id t di sc ov ered ap pr ox im at el y $1 9,0 00 i n cas h on Mayfiel d’s pe rs on

. Offi cer Sch m id t th en pl aced bo th Mayfiel d

an d Delg ad o in th e ba ck se at of hi s sq ua d car. Tho ug h he de te rm in ed th at it was to o

co ld an d win dy to al lo w Gan le y t o r em ai n ou ts id e, Offi cer Sch m id t ha d no fu rth er

sp ace in hi s sq ua d car. He th eref or e en su red th at Gan le y ha d no weap on s on he r

pe rs on , con du ct ed a qu ic k s earc h o f th e car sh e h ad be en dr iv in g, an d p la ced he r in

it s ba ck se at

. Offi cer Sch m id t re a d G an le y he r Mi ran da rig ht s an d pr oc eed ed to

se arch th e ve hi cl e wit h Gan le y s it ti ng in th e ba ck se at

. Dur in g th is se arch

, Offi cer
Sch m id t di sc ov ered a p p ro xi m at el y on e po un d of wha t was la te r de te rm in ed to be

m et ha m ph et am in e, pa ck ag ed in m ul ti pl e ba gs

. Offi cer Sch m id t arre st ed al l th ree of

th e ve hi cl e’s oc cu pa nt s. Gan le y , Delg ad o, an d Mayfiel d were tra ns po rte d to th e jail

, whe re Del ga do was i nt erv ie wed by T as k F or ce Offi cer J ace Ga ul ke

.

At th e su pp res si on he ari ng , Offi cer Sch m id t te st ifi ed th at he sm el le d th e od or

of m ari juan a as so on as he le an ed do wn to ta lk wit h Gan le y , a nd th at w h e n Gan le y

was in th e ba ck se at of th e car, sh e sa id “ m ari juan a was co ns um ed rig ht be fo re the y

go t in th e ve hi cl e.” Delg ad o al so te st ifi ed at th e su pp r es si on he ari ng th at he ha d 4

Delg ad o’s te st im on y at th e su pp res s i o n h e ari ng di ffer ed fro m hi s tri al 4

te st im on y wit h res pe ct to th e d e t a i l s of pr eci se ly whe n an d whe re he sm ok ed th e

m ari juan a an d wh at clo th in g h e was weari ng when he di d s o.

-3

-sm ok ed m ari juan a be fo re ge tt in g in th e car th at m or n i n g

. Te s t im on y at th e

su pp res si on he ari ng es ta bl is he d th at ne it he r Delg ad o nor G an le y tol d Offi cer Sch m id t

th at an y on e ha d sm ok ed m ari juan a in si de th e ve hi cl e on th e m or ni ng th e gr ou p was

st op pe d. Offi cer Gau lk e al so te st ifi e d a t t h e h e ari ng , an d he sa id he di d no t sm el l

m ari juan a on Delg ad o du rin g th e in te rv ie w at th e jail

. Howev er, Delg ad o di d te ll

Offi cer Gau lk e th at th ere were te n po un ds of m et ha m ph et am in e an d a sm al l am ou nt

of m ari juan a at a ne arb y Day s Inn Hot el

. Offi cers ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r th e

in di cat ed ho te l ro om

. Upo n ex ecu ti ng th e warra nt

, of fic e rs di sc ov ered

m et ha m ph et am in e, m ari

juan a, dr ug pa rap he rn al ia , and a fi rear m

.

Mayfiel d m ov ed to su p p r e s s t he ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e ve hi cl e

se arch an d th e se arch of th e ho te l ro om

. Mayfiel d arg ue d th at

, whi le th e in it ia l tra ffi c

st op was va li d, Offi cer Sch m id t la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e ve hi cl e be cau se
Offi cer Sch m id t’s te st im on y th at he sm el le d m ari juan a was no t cred ib le

. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed Mayfiel d’s m ot io n to su pp res s, fin di ng Offi cer Sch m id t’s t e s t i mon y

reg ard in g hi s co nc ern s fo r hi s sa fe t y an d hi s de te ct io n of th e od or of m ari juan a

su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt p ro ba bl e cau se to sea rch th e v eh ic le

.

II . Dis cus si on

In rev ie win g t he de ni al of a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, we re vi ew le ga l co nc lu si on s
de no vo an d fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear err o r

. U n i t ed St at es v. Zam or a-Lo pe z, 68 5

F.3 d 78 7, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W e “ wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n

to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an

erro ne ou s in te rp ret at i o n of ap pl ic ab le la w, o r, ba se d on th e en ti re reco rd , i t is cl ear

a m is ta ke was m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Hog an , 53 9 F.3 d 9 1 6

, 9 2 1 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 08 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Ann is , 44 6 F .3d 85 2, 8 55 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

The pa rti es ag ree th at th e od or of m ari juan a em an at in g fro m a ve hi cl e pr ov id es

pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e v e h i c l e pu rs ua nt to th e au to m ob il e ex cep ti on to th e

-4

-Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n o f w arra nt le ss se arch es an d se iz ur es

. See, e.g .,

Uni te d St at es v. Pel ti er, 21 7 F.3 d 60 8, 61 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [T]he sm el l of m ari juan a

ga ve th e de pu ty p ro ba bl e cau se to se arch Pel ti er’s tru ck f o r dr ug s.”) ; Uni te d St at es

v. Neum an n, 18 3 F.3 d 75 3, 75 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (n ot in g offi cer’s exp eri en ce in dru g

an d al co ho l de te ct io n in fin di ng of fic er ha d pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e de fen da nt ’s

ve hi cl e fo r an op en co nt ai ne r ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s br eat h an d de m ean or ). Offi cer
Sch m id t te st ifi ed th at he sm el le d m ari juan a em an at in g fro m th e ve hi cl e. The refo re,

th e de te rm in at io n as to whe t h e r O f f ic er Sch m id t ha d pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e

ve hi cl e tu rn s on whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng Offi cer Sch m id t’s

te st im on y cred ib le

.

“ The as se ss m en t of a wit ne ss ’s c r ed ib il it y is th e pr ov in ce of th e tri al co ur t.”

U n i t e d St at es v. Heat h, 58 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 75 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). “ The di st ric t co ur t’s

fin di ng s reg ard in g wit ne ss cred ib il it y ‘are en ti tl ed to pa rti cu la rly gr eat de fere nc e,’

an d [typi cal ly] are ‘virt ua ll y un rev ie wab le on ap pe al .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. W rig ht

, 73 9

F.3 d 11 60

, 11 66 –6 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Mayfiel d arg ue s th is

is th e un us ua l cas e of erro r, as se rti ng Sch m id t’s te st im on y is no t cred ib le be cau se he

ga ve co nf li ct in g st at em en ts reg ard in g th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e tra ffi c st op

an d be cau se ex tri ns ic ev id en ce co nt rad ic ts Sch m id t’s te st im on y

. See Heat h, 58 F.3 d

at 12 75 (ex pl ai ni ng th at a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at a wit ne ss ’s te st im on y is

c r e d i b l e “can al m os t ne ve r be a cl ear erro r un le ss th ere is ex tri ns ic ev id en ce th a t

co nt rad ic ts th e wit ne ss ’s st or y or th e st or y is so in te rn al ly in co ns is te nt or im pl au si bl e

on it s fa ce t ha t a r eas on ab le fact -fi nd er wo ul d n ot cred it it ”).

Mayfiel d hi gh li gh ts se ve ral in co n s i st en ci es be twee n Offi cer Sch m id t’s

te st im on y an d ot he r st at em en ts an d rep or ts he m ad e ab ou t th e cas e. In pa rti cu la r, Mayfiel d arg ue s th at Offi cer Sch m id t’s te st im on y wit h res pe ct to whe n he cal le d fo r
ba ck up co nf

li c t e d wit h a st at em en t he ga ve rep or te rs a da y or so aft er th e st op

. Mayfiel d al so as se r t s th at Offi cer Sch m id t’s ex pl an at io ns as to why he fai le d to

co nf is cat e Delg al do ’s an d Ma yf i el d’s cel lu la r ph on es be fo re pu tt in g th em in th e

-5

-s q u ad car an d fai le d to pe rfo rm an y so br ie ty te st s on Gan le y are su ffi ci en tl y

qu es ti on ab le to ren de r hi s te st im on y ge ne ral ly un rel ia bl e. Mayfiel d i s a l so of th e
vi ew th at Sch m id t’s act io ns du rin g th e tra ffi c st op do no t co m po rt wit h hi s pu rp or te d

fear fo r hi s sa fet y

. As fo r ex tri ns ic co nt rad ic to ry ev id en ce, Mayfiel d po in ts to th e fact

th at Offi cer Gau lk e di d no t sm el l m ari juan a on Delg ad o du rin g th e in te rv ie w

. He

as se rts th at Gau lk e’s in ab il it y to sm el l m ari juan a du rin g th e in te rv ie w—i n co nf in ed

cl os ed qu art ers —i nd ic at es th at Offi cer Sch m id t co ul d no t ha ve sm el le d m ari juan a in

th e co ld op en air on a win dy day

.

Yet Offi cer Sch m id t te st ifi ed th at he im m ed ia te ly sm el le d m ari juan a whe n he

be nt do wn to sp eak wit h Gan le y , m ean in g th at Offi cer Sch m id t was ve ry cl os e to th e

op en win do w of th e ve hi cl e at th e ti m e he de te ct ed th e od or of m ari juan a. And

Ga nl ey to ld Sch m id t th at “ m ari juan a was co ns um ed ” earl ie r in th e da y

. Mo reo ve r,
Sch m id t’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e od or of m ari juan a is su pp or te d, no t co nt rad ic te d,
by Delg ad o’s ad m is si on th at he ha d sm ok ed m ari juan a th at m or ni ng an d th e fact th at

m ari juan a was fo un d in th e ho te l ro om whe re Delg ad o sa id it wou ld be

. The di st ric t

co ur t reco gn iz ed so m e di sc rep an ci es in Offi cer Sch m id t’s te st im on y , bu t fo un d th os e
di sc rep an ci es di d no t affe ct w h e th er Sch m id t cred ib ly te st ifi ed th at he sm el le d

m ari juan a em an at in g fro m th e car, whi ch Mayfiel d co nc ed es is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

a fi nd in g o f pr ob ab le cau se . W e tr eat th e di st ric t cou rt’s det erm in at io n th at Offi cer
Sch m id t was cred ib le wit h “ pa rti c u la rly gr eat de fere nc e,” W rig ht

, 73 9 F.3 d at

11 66 –6 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

, an d fin d th at th is de te rm in at io n was no t so
cl earl y erro ne ou s or co nt rary to ex te rn al ev id en ce th at a reas on ab le fact -fi nd er wou ld

no t cr ed it it

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-