The Honor able Edmund A. Sar g us, J r., United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0445n.06 F iled: July 29, 2008 No. 08-3207 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MA RS HAL LL . C RU MB, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

__________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

T H E N O R T HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF ORE: COL E and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and SARGUS, District J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. De fe nd ant M ars ha ll L . Cr umb a pp e a ls a n o rd e r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

de nyinghis mot ion

to
su pp re ss e vid e nc e dis c ov e re d d ur inga tr a ff ic sto p. Cr

umb argue s tha t poli c e la c ke d p ro ba ble c a us e to conduct a war

rantless sear ch of the vehicle in which he wa s riding, de spite the arr esting office r
sme lli ng the od or of mari jua na and se e inga pa rtial ly smo ke d ma

ri jua na c ig are tte in p la in v ie w i n the ve hic le . We dis a g re e and , a c c or din g ly , a ff ir m Cr umb’s con vict ion s f

or be inga fe lon in possession of a fir ear

m, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ), and possessing a contr olled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). I.No. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

Duffy testified at the suppression hear ing that a speed loader is “a small device to which y ou 1 would attach bullets, li v e ro u nds to be inserted into the c hamber of a r evolver

for quick loa ding.” - 2 - I n the ea rly morning of January

27, 2007, Offic er Ry an Duf fy of the L inndale (O H) Police De pa rtme nt o bs e rv e d a

ve hic le tr a ve lin g no rt

hb ou nd on I nte rs tate 71 a t a

hig h r a te of

sp e e d w hil e
weaving on a

nd off the shoulde r. Ther eaf ter, Of fice r Duffy , along with Aux iliary Offic er Ma

hon, executed a tr aff

ic stop of the vehic le. As Duffy approa ched the vehicle’ s driver, D oug las Scott, and be g an s pe a kin g wi th h im, Du ff y sme lle d th e od or of mari

jua na e manatin g fr om t

he ve hic le . Wh ile Duffy and Scott cont i n u ed to talk, Duff y saw a partially smoked marijuana

cig are tte in an ashtra

y in the vehicle’ s cente r console. D uffy then aske d both Scott and his passeng er, de fenda nt Crumb, fo r i de nti fi c a tion and requ ested that Sc ott

ha nd him the mari jua na c ig are tte . Sc ott

and Cr umb complied with Duffy ’s re quests. After a sca n of Crumb’s license disclosed two o u tstanding a rre st warr ants, Duff

y returne d to t he ve hic le , r e mov e d d e fe nd ant fr om the pa sse ng e r se a t, an d co nd uc te d a pat -d ow n sea

rc h o f h im. Th e se arc h o f d e fe nd ant reve a le d a sma ll p la sti c ba g c on ta ini ngmari jua na and a sma ll e le c tr on ic scale . Duffy

subsequently

place d Crumb in handcuff s and seated him in the rea r of the police cruiser . Duffy

then re moved Scott f

rom the vehicle, at which time he noticed the smell of alcohol on Scott’s breath. Du ri ng his pat-down sea rch of Scott, Duffy

found a small plastic ba g , which contained multiple smaller ba g s of marijuana , and a speed loa der. Duffy then seated Scott in the 1

rea r of Of fice r Mahon’ s police cr

uiser.No. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

- 3 - After both Crumb and Scott were in custody , Offic ers Duf fy and Mahon pe rfor

med a sea rch of the ve hicle, finding a loade d revolve r on the drive r’s side. The rea fter, D uffy returne d to the cruiser , place d Scott under ar rest, and issued him a Miranda war ning. When Scott refused to make a stateme nt, Duffy

resumed his sea

rch of the vehicle
. Dur in g th is p o rti o no f

th e s e ar c h , D u f

f y d is c o v e r e d

a p la s ti c b a g c o n ta in in g c r a c k coca ine lod g e d b e tw e e n th e c e nte r c on so le and the dr ive r’s se a t, whil e Of fi c e r M aho n f

ound Ec sta c y pil ls
sc a tte re d o n th e pa sse ng e r s ide of t he veh icle. I n th e tr un k, the of

fi c e rs un c ov e re d a

larg e pla sti c fre ezer ba g containing marijuana and a se mi-automatic pistol underneath the bag. The off icer s then towed the ve hicle and tr ansported Scott and Crumb to the L inndale Police De partment for booking and questioning , during which Crumb admitted that he owne d the fire arm found in the tr unk. Subsequently , Crumb and Scott were named in a f our-c ount indictment that charg ed defe ndant with being a fel o n i n p o ssession of a fir ear m, in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g ), and possessing a

controlled substanc e, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). B oth Crumb and Scott filed motions t o suppress the e vidence discovere d during the traf fic stop, and the district c ourt held a hear ing on the motions. After re ceivingtestimony from Of fice r Duff y – the only

witness prese nted during th e h earing – the cour t issued a written orde r deny ing the motions, ruling that Duff y had probable cause to searc h Scott, Crumb, and the vehicle in whic h they wer e traveling beca

use of the office r’s de tection of mar ijuana odor e manating from the ve hicle. F oll ow ingthe de nia l of h is m oti on , Cr umb e nte re d in to a

ple a a g re e me nt w ithpr os e c uto rs , in which he r eser

ved the r ight to ap p eal the district court’s denia l of his motion t o suppress. TheNo. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

- 4 - court a cce pted Crumb’s plea a nd sentenc ed def

endant to a te rm o f 1 2 m o n ths and one da y of incar cer ation on eac h count, to be serve d concur rently
. Crumb now

appea ls the denial of his motion to suppress. II. On appe al, Crumb raises a s i n gl e i s s ue: whethe r the district cour t erre d in ruling that the detec tion of marijuana odor and the pr esenc e of a

partially smoked marijuana

cigar ette provide d probable cause to searc h the vehicle
. Specifica lly , Crumb argues that once O ffice r Duff y seized the marijuana cig are tte, no further sear ch of the vehicle was supported by probable cause . We disag ree . We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of a mot ion to s up pr e ss f

or c le ar e rr or

wi th r e sp e c t to the court’s finding s of fa ct and de novo with reg ard to c onclusions of law. United States v. Jac kson , 47 0 F .3 d 2 99 , 3 06 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Coffee , 434 F.3d 887, 892 ( 6th Cir. 2006). On de fe nd ant’ s a

pp e a l, w e c on sid e r t

he e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

a vo rabl e to t

he g ov e rnme nt. Jack son , 470 F.3d at 306-07. I n g ener al, the F ourth Amendment re quires that all sea rche s and se i z u re s b e supported by probable cause . Ma ry lan d v . Prin gle , 5 40 U. S. 366 , 369 (2 00 3)
. Al tho ug h s e arc he s mu st n or ma lly be c on du c te d p ur su ant t o a wa rr ant, un de r t

he w ell-kn ow n a

uto mob ile e xce pti on , a

wa rr antl e ss
se arc h o f a

ve hic le that ha s b e e n s top pe d la wf ull y is p e rm iss ibl e if the se arc h is bas e d upo n p ro ba ble
cause . Un ite d S

tates v . R os s , 4 56 U. S. 7 98 , 8 23 (1 98 2) ; Un ite d S tates v . P as qu ar ill e , 20 F.3d 682, 69 0 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 4) . “ Pr ob a

ble c a us e is d e fi ne d a s r e a so na

ble g ro un ds fo r b e lie f, su

pp or te d b y le ss tha n p ri ma fa c ie pr oo f b ut m or e tha n me re su sp ic ion , a

nd is fou nd to e xist w he n th e re is a fa irNo. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

- 5 - probability that evidenc e of a crime will be located on the premises of the p ro p o s ed s ear ch.” Jack son , 470 F.3d at 306 (internal quotation mar ks and citations omitted). Thus, in determining the admissibilit y of evide nce se ized dur ing a war rantless sea

rch of a vehicle dur ing a

traff ic stop, we must answe r two question s : fi rs t , whether the initial stop of the vehicle w as supported by rea sonabl e s u s picion and, sec ond, whether the subsequent se arc h of the vehicle was supported by probable cause . United States v. Foster , 376 F.3d 577, 584- 85 (6th Cir. 2004); Un ite d S

tates v . G ar

za , 1 0 F. 3 d 1241, 1245 (6th Cir. 1993). Crumb does not contest that Offic er D uffy

had re asonable suspicion to conduct a traff ic stop of the vehic le. See U nited States v. Simpson , 520 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that a seizure of vehic le due to an ong oing traff ic violation is gove rned by the standar d of reas o n able suspicion). Thus, beca use there is no dispute that the initial stop of the vehicle wa s valid, the focus of o ur ana ly sis is whether Of fice rs Duffy and Mahon ha d probable cause to searc h the vehicle
. I n ruling that Offic er Du ff y ’s d et ec tion of marijuana in the ve hicle, by itself, provided the
nece ssary probable cause to conduct a la wful sea rch of the vehicle , the district court re lied on our opinion in Ga rza . I n Ga rza , the def endant’ s semi-truck ve hicle wa s pulled over in a tr aff ic stop by fede ral Dr

ug Enforc ement Administration (“D EA”) and United States B order Patrol agents, af

ter they conducted a we ek-longsurveillance that sug g ested the de fenda nt was involved in drug traff icking
. Ga rza , 10 F.3d at 1243-44. After order ing the defe ndant to e x it the truck, a DEA a g ent
no tic e d a str on g od or

of mari jua na c omi ng fr om the tr

uc k as the a g e nt l oo ke d in sid e the ve hic le via a “f lapping ” open door

to confirm that no other

individuals we re hiding inside. Id. at 1244. TheNo. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

- 6 - fede ral a g ents then conduc ted a f ull searc h of t he truc k, discovering150 pounds of marijuana stored in the cab. Id. a t 12 43 . O n a pp e a l f ro m th e de nia l of

the de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss, we he ld that the ag ents had re asonable suspicion to conduct a tra ffic stop of the truck, and the DEA a g ent’s “smelling the m arijuana then consti tuted probable cause to believe that ther e wa s marijuana in the vehicle. O nce this proba

ble ca use existed, a sear ch wa

rra nt was not nec essar

y .” Id. at 1246. Def endant Crumb attempts to disti ng uish Ga rza , arguing that it “is appare nt that the leng thy surveillance of the De fenda nt’s actions [in Ga rza ] coupled with t h e s m el l of marijuana from an
un kn ow n s ourc e pr ov ide d a n o bje c tiv e ba sis for the f ind ingof pr ob a ble c a us e to s e arc h th e se mitruck cab.” Crumb is corre ct that the def endant in Ga rza was the subject of a we ek-longsurveillance by fe de ra l a g e nts
. How eve r, a lth ou g h th e surv e ill anc e pr ov ide d th e a g e nts wi th t he re a so na

ble suspicion sufficient to conduc t a lawf ul traff ic stop, Ga rza , 10 F.3d at 1245-46, it was the mar ijuana odor – and only the m arijuana odor – that we cited as pr oviding pr obable c ause to sea rch the interior of the truc k. Thus, our opinion in Ga rza does not support Crumb’s position. Moreove r, we have f

ollowed Ga rza consistently in holding that the detec tion of a nar cotic’s odor, by itself, is sufficient to provide pr obable c ause to c onduct a law ful sear ch of a ve hicle. See Un ite d S ta tes v. Puc k

e tt , 4 22 F .3 d 3 40 , 3 43 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) (u ph old ingthe de nia l of

a mot ion to suppress whe re police “smelled and sawin open view the ma rijuana in the se at” a

nd “[t] here fore , the re wa s pr ob a

ble c a us e to se a

rc h the car at t hat point ” ); Foster , 376 F.3d at 588 (holding that “whe n the offic ers de tected the smell of marijuana coming from F oster’s ve hicle, this provided them with probable c ause to sea rch the vehicle without a searc h war rant” which “the ref

ore turne d a lawf

ulNo. 08-3207

United States v. Crumb

- 7 - Terry sto p in to a

lawf ul s e arc h” ); United States v. Elkins , 300 F.3d 638, 659 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (obser ving that “[t] his c o u rt has held that a n office r’s de tection of the smell of ma rijuana in a

n automobile can by

itself establish probable cause for a sear ch” a nd noting that “[t ]he same may be true whe n marijuana

is smelled within a home”). See also Simpson , 520 F.3d at 544-45 (holding that probable cause to searc h a vehic le exist ed “upon the aler t of a tra ined nar cotics-de tection dog ”); United States v. Littleton , 15 F. App’x 189, 193 (6th Cir. 2001) (re jecting defe ndant’s ar g ument that probable cause was lac king be cause drugdetec tion dog wa s unreliable, a nd holding that tra ining a

nd
re lia bil ity of dr ugdo g wa s ir

re le va nt b e c a us e sme ll o f m ari

jua na wa s suf fi c ie nt to e sta

bli shpr ob a

ble
cause to permit warr antless sea rch of vehicle)
. F ur the rm or e , w e re

jec t Cr umb’ s c la im that th e pr ob a ble c a us e to s e arc h th e ve hic le terminated upon the seiz ure of the marijuana

cig are tte by

Offic er D uffy . I t is clear that upon
sme lli ng the mari jua na od or and se e ingthe mari

jua na c ig are tte , th e po lic e of

fi c e rs ha d r e a so na

ble g rounds to believe that further evidenc e of a crime may be found inside the vehicle
. See J ackson , 470 F.3d at 306 (citing , e.g ., United States v. J enkins , 396 F.3d 751, 760 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Moreove r, the pre sence of the spee d loader found on S cott’s person, coupled with the detec tion of the marijuana cig are tte, sug g ested that Crumb and Scott may have be en invol ved in t he distribution of marijuana and esta blished sufficient pr obable c ause to sea rch the vehicle. Be cause the police had pr obable c ause to sea rch the vehicle, w e hold that the district cour t did not err in deny

ing Crumb’ s motion t o suppress. Affir med.