FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 07 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 85 -MHT-C SC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NICADEMUS J OHNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, HULL, an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r si m pl e p os se ss io n o f m ari

juan a an d b ei ng a fel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm , Nicad em us Jo hn so n app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s de ni al of h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce o bt ai ne d dur in g awarran tl es s s earc h o f hi s au to m ob il e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND On the ni gh t o f Apr il 5, 2 00 8, Def en da ntJo hn so n a ndhi s ac qu ai nt an ce Jo hn ny Fennwentfora dr iv e in Jo hn so n’s ca r. Fen n, wh o h adanou ts ta nd in g fel on y arre stwarran t, ro de inth e p as se ng er s eat . After r ecei vi ng a po li ce d is pa tc h cal l re ga rd in g F enn’s p res en ce i n t he car, Offi cer An th on y McLen do n b eg anto fo ll ow the m

inhi s p ol ic e v eh ic le an d a ct iv at edit s l ig ht s. Ho wev er, J oh ns on co nt in ue d t o driv e. Jo hn so n ra n ast op si gn an d dro ve ap pr ox im at el y an ot he r 10 0 to 20 0 yards be fo re s to pp in g. Offi cer M cLen do n a rres te d F en n. Aft er Fe nn ’s arres t, Offi cer M cLen do n se arch edDefen da ntJo hn so n’s ca r an d d is co ve redinth e trun k ahand gu n a nda bl ackba g c on ta in in g n um ero us cle ar p la st ic ba gs fil le d wi th m ari juan a. So m e lo os e m ari

juan a was als o i ns id e th e b la ckba g.

2Defen da ntJo hn so n fi le d apre tri al m ot io n t o s up pr es s, ar gu in g t ha t the

warrant le ss sea rch of h is car was un supp orte d b y pro babl e cau se . 1 A fed eral m ag is tra te jud ge co nduc te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng onJo hn so n’s supp res si on m ot io n. Th e g ov ern m en t ca ll edOffic er Mc Len do n, wh o fi rs t t es ti fie d ab ou t the ev en ts lea di ng to th e tr affi c st op . At th e ti m e o f th e st op , Offic er McLen do n s ta te d i t was rai ni ng an d d ark , with ali tt le win d. Offi cer M cLen do n an d a no th er o ffi cer app ro ach edth e car ’s pas se ng er s id e an d o rd eredFen n o utof th e car . Whe n F en n re fu se d, Offi cer M cLen do n o pe ne d t he pa ss en ge r do oran d or de redFen n t o g etou t. Fen n a ga in refu se d. Atth atpo in t, Offi cer M cLen do n reac he d i nt o t he car, g rab be d F en n, an d re m ov edhi m fro m th e car . Office r McLen do n t he n t ol d J oh ns on to tu rnoff hi s car, bu t J oh ns on fai le d t o c om pl y . Offi cer M cLen do n s m el le d ra w m ari juan a whe n h e rem ov edFen n. The raw m ari juan a smell was stro ng es t i n t he ba cksea t ar ea. Acco rd in g t o Off ic er McLen do n, h e h aden co un te redm ari juan a 1 00 to 15 0 t im es du rin g h is ti m e wit h th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t. Ad di ti on al ly, ba se d o n h is tra in in g a ndex pe rie nc e, Offi cer McLen do n t es ti fie d h e was fam il ia r with the di ffer en ce i n o do r be twee n b urntan d raw m ari juan a.

J ohnson appea ls only

the denial of

the suppression of the phy sical evide nce f ound in his 1 vehicle. 3Afte r Offi cer M cLen do n a rres te d F en n, the ot he r of fic er d et ai ne d J oh ns on , an d M cLen do n s earc he d t he car. Offi cer M cLen do n d is co ve redth e h an dg un an d th e b ag co nt ai ni ng m ari

juan a in th e trun k. Defen da ntJo hn so n t he n c al le d Dr. Ri ch ardDoty , an e xp ertinth e se ns e o f sm el l. Dr. Dot y

tes ti fie d t ha t co ldtem

pe ratur e, win d, an d ra in wou ldall im pe de th e m ov em en t o f sc en t m ol ecu le s. InDr. Doty ’s op in io n, i t wo ul d b e “ ne xtto im po ss ib le ” fo r anoff

ic er t o s m el l the m ari

juan a in si de th e b la ckba g i n J oh ns on ’s tru nk , du e to th e m ari

juan a’s pa ck ag in g andth e weathe r co nd it io ns . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Dr. Do ty adm it te d h e was un fam il iar with t he po te nc y or s tre ng th of s m el l o f th e p art ic ul ar m ari juan a fo un d i n J oh ns on ’s car. Mo reo ve r, Dr. Doty

co ul d n ottes ti fy

to th e ex acttem

pe ratur e o r ot he r en vi ro nm en ta l co nd it io ns at t he ti m e o f th e tr affi c st op . Dr. Doty was un fam il ia r with J oh ns on ’s veh ic le an d c ou ldno t s ay whet he r th e car ’s m od ifi edrearsp eak ers im pr ov edor i m

pe de d a ir f

lo w bet weenth e p as se ng er co m pa rtment a ndth e tr

un k. Inhi s re po rt a ndreco m

m en da ti on (“ R&R ”), the m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d d en y in g J oh ns on ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s b ecau se th e v eh ic le search was supp orte d b y

pro babl e cau se . The m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndOffic er McLen do n’s t es ti m on y

cred ib le an d g av e li tt le weig htto Dr. Doty ’s tes ti m on y . The m ag is tra te jud ge no te d t ha t Dr. Do ty w as un fam il ia r with m an y of t he sal ie nt 4fact s o f th e tr affi c st op an d c ou ldno t ad dr es s the “ m ul ti tu de of p os si bl e sc en ari os whi chbe ar o n t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r itis po ss ib le foranoff ic er t o s m el l raw m ari juan a.” The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he R&R, s pe ci fic al ly not in g t ha t the m ag is tra te jud ge “ ap pr op ria te ly found ” Offi cer M cLen do n’s t es ti m on y to be cred ib le . The di st ric t co urt thu s d en ie d J oh ns on ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Jo hn so n’s ca se pro ceed edto tri al , anda jury foundhi m gu il ty of si m

pl e po ss es si on of m ari

juan a an d b ei ng a fel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm . The di st ric t 2 co urt s en te nc edJo hn so n t o 1 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t as to th e m ari juan a o ffen se an d 2 7 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t as to th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n o ffen se , bo th term s t o run c on cu rren tl y . Jo hn so n app eal s o nl y th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. II . DISCUSSI ON A di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng ona m ot io n t o s up pr es s p res en ts a m ix edqu es ti on of law an d fa ct . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bau ti st a-Si lv a, 56 7 F .3d12 66 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . The indictment cha

rg ed Johnson with three offe nses: (1) possession of a controlled 2 substance w ith intent to di stribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); ( 2) using , car rying, a nd possessing a

firea rm in further ance of a dr

ugtraff ickingcrime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A); and ( 3) possession of a f irea rm by a convic ted fe lon, in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g )(1) . Ba sed on the jury

instructions and the ver dict, it is clear that the jur y convicted Johnson of simple possession on Count 1, and acquitted Johns on on Count 2, the § 924(c) of fense . Howeve r, the judgment ref lects that the simple possession conviction was e ntere d under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) ra

ther than 21 U .S.C. § 844(a). When the ca se re turns to the district court, the district court should corr ect the statutory ref ere nce. 520 09 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d re vi ew de

no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts . Id. Thi s C ou rt co ns tru es all fact s i n t he li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng party. See Uni te d St at es v. Del an cy , 50 2 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Furth er, we d eferto th e di st ric t co urt’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , un le ss th ey ap pe ar “ unbe li ev ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The au to m ob il e ex cep ti on to th e Fo urth Am en dm en t’s warr an t re qu ire m en t pe rm it s “ th e p ol ic e to co nduc t a s earc h o f a v eh ic le if (1 ) th e v eh ic le is read il y m ob il e[,] and(2) th e p ol ic e h av e p ro babl e cau se forth e se arch .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lin ds ey , 48 2 F .3d12 85 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The m ob il it y requi rem en t i s sa ti sf ie d b y a sh owi ng th atth e au to m ob il e is op erat io na l. Un it edSta te s v . W at ts , 32 9 F .3d12 82 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Becaus e Jo hn so n d oe s n otdi sp ut e th athi s car was op erat io na l, o uron ly inqui ry is whet he r th e o ffi cers ha d p ro babl e cau se to se arch th e car . Pro babl e cau se fora ve hi cl e se arch “ ex is ts when un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th ere i s a f ai r pr ob ab il it y

th atco nt rab an d o r ev id en ce o f a cri m e wil l b e fo un d i n t he ve hi cl e.” Lin ds ey , 48 2 F .3dat 1 29 3 (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . Our ca se law es tabl is he s tha t i f a p ol ic e o ffi cer d et ect s the od orof m ari juan a, th is gi ve s ri se to pro babl e cau se supp orti ng a warra nt le ss sea rch . See 6Uni te d S ta te s v . Tob in , 92 3 F .2d15 06 , 15 12 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (enba nc ); Un it ed

St at es v. Lu eck , 67 8 F .2d89 5, 9 03 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Here, Offi cer M cLen do n t es ti fie d t ha t h e was fam il ia r with t he od orof r aw m ari juan a an d s m el le d i t wh enhe rem ov edFen n fr om Jo hn so n’s ca r. Nothi ng in he ren tl y

unbe li ev ab le ex is ts reg ard in g Off ic er Mc Len do n’s t es ti m on y . See Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 7 49 . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n c red it in g Off

ic er Mc Len do n’s t es ti m on y . Thu s, we af firm th e d is tri ct co urt’s d en ia l o f Jo hn so n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. AFFIRMED.

7