FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUL 06 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10618

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 7 1 6 - CR- PCH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E S U S T A M A R I , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 6, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

A p p el l an tJesu s T am ari ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th th e i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e ac o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846. T a m a r i a r gue s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e a n d s ta te m e n ts o b ta in e d d u r in g tw o u n la w f u l s e a r c h e s o f

h is vehi cl e. Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG R OU ND In ea rl y 200 3, fe dera l , st at e, and l ocal l aw enforce m entagent s began c o n d u c tin g a n in v e s tig a tio n in to ala r g e - s c a le c o n s p ir a c y in s o u th F lo r id ato ha rve s ta nd di s tr i but e c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s . T he a ge nt s ha d r e a s on t o be l i e ve the or ga ni z a t i on w a s run by a n i ndi vi dua l na m e d H um be r t o F e bl e s , w ho ow ne d a y e l l ow H um m e rtha the us e d i n the c ons pi r a c y . D ur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, ac onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nta l e r t e d a uthor i t i e s t o s e ve r a l pr ope r t i e s the o rg an i zat i o n u sed t o cu l t i v at e an d h o u se v ari o u s co n tro l l ed su b st an ces. P u r s u a n t to thi s i nform at i on , agent s obt ai ned a w arrantt o sea rc h a parce l of rura l , i sol at ed pr ope r ty l oc a t e d a t17540 S outhw e s t254th S tr e e ti n M i a m i , F l or i da . T he w a rr a nt autho ri ze d agent s t o sea rc h the prop erty, i ncl ud i ng “ [v] ehi cl es or vess el s or tra i l er s r e gi s t e r e d t o orow ne d by the oc c upa nt s of the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d, orunde rthe c a r e , c u s to d y o rc o n tr o l o ro n th e p r o p e r ty o n w h ic h th e p la c e to b e s e a r c h e d is si tuat ed. ”3

B etw ee n 7 : 30 a. m . and 8 : 00 a. m . on S ept em ber 1, 20 04 , agent s a rr i ved at 17540 S outhw e s t254th S tr e e t , w he r e upon the y s e rve d the s e a r c h w a rr a nta nd pr oc e e de d t o e xe c ut e the w a rr a ntby c onduc t i ng the s e a r c h. U pon e nt e r i ng the r e s id e n c e o n th e p r o p e r ty , th e y a rr e s te d th r e e in d iv id u a ls : R o b e r to C a n o , M a r ta G on za l ez , and R ud ol fo A gu i l er a. T he a ge nt s the n s e a r c he d the r e s i de nc e a nd s e i z e d c oc a i ne , drug pa r aphe rna l i a , c a s h, a nd anum be rof l oa de d w e apons . S oon the r e a f t e r , a ge nt s s e a r c he d aF r e i ght l i ne rtruc k pa rke d on the pr ope r ty , f i ndi ng s lig h tly le s s th a n 1 3 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e a n d s ta c k s o f

c a s h to ta lin g $ 5 3 6 ,4 2 1 . A ppr oxi m a t e l y 30 m i nut e s t o one houra f t e rc om bi ng the F r e i ght l i ne rtruc k, w hi l e the s e a r c h w a s s t i l l i n pr ogr e s s , T a m a r i dr ove ont o the pr ope r ty i n ay e l l ow H um m e r . H e appr oa c he d S pe c i a l A ge ntD e br aC r a ne , w ho w a s s t a ndi ng i n the dr i ve w a y , a nd be ga n t o s pe a k i n S pa ni s h. A ge ntC r a ne , notf l ue nti n S pa ni s h, ca ll ed fo r a ss istan ce fr o m D etec ti v e J o rg e R o d rig u ez , w h o as k ed fo r T am ar i’ s na m e , i de nt i f

i c a t i on, a nd hi s purpos e f orbe i ng on the pr ope r ty . E xi t i ng the H um m e r , T a m a r i r e s ponde d w i th ana m e , butw a s unabl e t o pr oduc e a ny i dent i fi ca t i on or vehi cl e r egi stra t i on . T am ar i then t ol d agent s the vehi cl e bel on ged t o a fa m i l y m em ber, bu tl at ercl ai m ed i tbel on ged t o an i nd i vi du al nam ed H u m b e r to , w h o lo a n e d h im th e v e h ic le in e x c h a n g e f o rT a m a r i’s H o n d aA c c o r d . H e a ls o s a id h e w a s o n th e p r e m is e s to s e e am a n ab o u t s o m e a n im a ls , b u t it ap p eared th ere w ere n o an i m al s o n th e p ro p erty.4

A g e n t C r a n e th e n s e a r c h e d th e c a r , lo o k in g f o rits r e g is tr a tio n o ra n y in d ic ia o f o w n e r s h ip . A f

te rs e a r c h in g th e g lo v e c o m p a r tm e n t, c e n te rc o n s o le , a n d p o c k e ts in th e d r iv e ra n d p a s s e n g e rd o o r s , A g e n t C r a n e b r ie f ly s c a n n e d th e r e a rc a r g o a r e a . S he ne i the rf

ound nors e i z e d a ny e vi de nc e dur i ng thi s s e a r c h. S ho rt l y there af t er , a g e n ts r a n an a r c o tic s d e te c tio n d o g , H o J o , a r o u n d th e p e r im e te ro f th e H u m m e r . H o J o g a v e ap o s itiv e a le r t to aw h e e l w e ll c o m p a r tm e n t in th e r e a rc a r g o a r e a , in w hi ch agent s f

ou nd ar ou nd $4 5, 00 0 i n cas h. A gent s then sea rc hed the H um m er a ga i n, f i ndi ng a nd s e i z i ng doc um e nt s c onc e rni ng R obe r t o C a no, phot ogr aphs of R o b e r to C a n o , ak e y to th e F r e ig h tlin e rtru c k , c a llin g c a r d s , a n d g o ld je w e lry . T a m a r i w a s s u b s e q u e n tly a rr e s te d a n d c h a r g e d w ith ( 1 ) c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w i th th e i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e ac o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. §§ 84 1(a) (1) a nd 84 6; and (2) po ss es si ng w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e acontrol l ed s u b s ta n c e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . B ef ore tri al , T am ar i m ov ed the di stri ctcourtt o sup pres s physi ca l evi dence o b t ai n ed d u ri n g th e search es o f th e H u m m er. T am ari al so m o v ed t o su p p ress s t a t e m e nt s he m a de dur i ng thos e s e a r c he s , a r gui ng the y w e r e the pr oduc tof un l aw ful se ar ches and thu s i nadm i ss i bl e “ frui tof the po i sono us tre e” un der W ong Su n v. U ni ted Stat es , 37 1 U . S . 47 1, 83 S . C t . 40 7 (19 63 ). T he di s tr i c tc our the l d a p r e lim in a ry h e a r in g a n d d e n ie d th e m o tio n , c o n c lu d in g th e v e h ic le w a s s u b je c t to s e a r c h u n d e rth e w a rr a n t’s a u th o r iz a tio n to s e a r c h “[ v ]e h ic le s . . . o n th e p r o p e r tyAfter carefully consideringthe other a

rguments raised on a

ppeal, weconcludethey

are 1 without merit and do not discuss them. Moreover , beca use the pa rties do not dispute the lawfulne ss of any

traff ic stop in this case, weconfineour discussion to the propriety of the September 1, 2004, se arches of the Hummer. 5 on w hi ch the pl ac e t o b e s ea rc hed i s s i tuat ed. ” A l t ernat i vel y, the di stri ctcourt f ound tha te ve n i f

the s e a r c h w a rr a ntdi d notj us t i f y the s e a r c he s , s uf

f i c i e nt p r o b ab le c a u s e e x is te d to p e rm it w a rr a n tle s s s e a r c h e s o f th e H u m m e r . T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d T a m a r i o f c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . H e w a s a c q u itte d o n th e r e m a in in g c o u n t. T a m a r i n o w ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n , a r g u in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e a nd s t a t e m e nt s obt a i ne d dur i ng the S e pt e m be r1, 2 0 0 4 , v eh i cl e search es. 1 I I . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW

“ W e appl y am i xe d s t a nda r d of r e vi e w t o the de ni a l of

ade f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on to s u p p r e s s , r e v ie w in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its appl i ca t i on of l aw t o tho se fa ct s de nov o. ” U ni te d State s v . L

y ons , 403 F . 3d 1248, 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 05 ).

I I I . DI S C US S I ON T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts th e “r ig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e s e c u r e in th e ir pers on s, ho uses , papers , and eff ec t s, agai nstun re as on abl e s ea rc hes a nd se i zure s. ”6

U . S . C o n st . am en d . IV . T h i s fu n d am en t al ri g h ti s g en eral l y p reserv ed b y a re qu i re m entthatse ar ches be cond uct ed pu rs uantt o a w arra nti ss ued b y a n in d e p e n d e n t ju d ic ia l o f

f ic e ru p o n as h o w in g o f

p r o b ab le c a u s e . See M arylan d v. D ys on , 52 7 U . S . 46 5, 46 6, 11 9 S . C t . 20 13 , 20 14 (199 9). T here ar e, of course , e x c e p tio n s to th e g e n e r a l ru le th a t aw a rr a n t m u s t b e s e c u r e d b e f o r e as e a r c h is u n d e r ta k e n , o n e o f

w h ic h is th e a u to m o b ile e x c e p tio n . U n d e rth e a u to m o b ile e x c e p tio n , a g e n ts m a y c o n d u c t aw a rr a n tle s s s e a r c h o f av e h ic le if

( 1 ) th e v e h ic le is r e a di l y m obi l e ( i . e . , ope r a t i ona l ) ; a nd ( 2) a ge nt s ha ve pr obabl e c a us e t o be l i e ve the v e h ic le c o n ta in s c o n tr ab a n d o re v id e n c e o f ac r im e . See D

ys on , 527 U . S . a t466- 67, 119 S . C t . a t2014; U n ite d S ta te s v . W

a tts , 32 9 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 85 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , av e h ic le s e a r c h w ill n o t v io la te th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t if it is a u th o r iz e d b y th e te rm s o f av a lid s e a r c h w a rr a n t o r , w h e r e a g e n ts c o n d u c t a w a rr a nt l e s s s e a r c h, i f

the ve hi c l e i s ope r a t i ona l a nd “ unde rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c u ms t a n c e s , ‘ th e r e i s af a i rp r o b ab i l i ty th a tc o n tr ab a n d o re v i d e n c e o f ac r i me w ill b e f o u n d ’” in th e v e h ic le . U n i ted S ta tes v. G o dda rd , 312 F . 3d 1360, 1363 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Il l i no is v . G at es , 462 U . S . 213, 238, 103 S . C t . 2317, 23 32 (198 3)). O n app ea l , T am ar i fi rs tar gu es the vehi cl e s ea rc hes i n thi s c as e w er e unl a w f ul be c a us e the y f

e l l out s i de the s c ope of

the s e a r c h w a rr a nt . R e l y i ngWe will not di scuss Tamari’s third argument beca use in Un ited S

tates v. Co le , 628 F.2d 2 897, 899 (5th Cir. 1980) the for mer F ifth Circuit held that a sea rch w arrant authorized the sea rch of a third pa

rty ’s truck on theproper

ty covered by

the sea rch w arrant. Se eals o Bonner v. City of Pritcha rd, 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ) ( a doptinga s b indingpre c e dent all decisions of the f

ormer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 7 pr i m a r i l y on U

n i ted S ta tes v. G en try , 8 3 9 F .2 d 1 0 6 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) , T a m a r i a s s e r ts the s e a r c h w a rr a ntdi d nota uthor i z e a ge nt s t o s e a r c h ve hi c l e s a rr i vi ng on the subj ec tprop erty duri ng the course of the agent s’ se ar ch. S ec on d, T am ar i ar gu es the vehi cl e s ea rc hes w er e uncon st i tut i on al un der Y b a r r a v . I

llin o is , 444 U . S . 85, 10 0 S . C t . 33 8 (19 79 ), because the H um m er ’ s m er e pre se nce on the subj ec t pr ope r ty di d notgi ve a ge nt s s uf f i c i e ntpr obabl e c a us e t o s e a r c h the ve hi c l e w i thout aw a rr a n t. T h ir d , T a m a r i a r g u e s th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t d id n o t e n c o m p a s s th e v e h ic le se ar ches because und er U ni te d State s v . P at te rs on , 27 8 F . 3d 31 5, 31 8-19 (4th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) , th e w a rr a n t’s a u th o r iz a tio n to s e a r c h v e h ic le s o n th e p r o p e r ty e x te n d e d o n ly t o th o se v eh i cl es “ o w n ed b y o r u n d er th e d o m i n i o n an d co n tro l o f th e p rem i ses’ ow ner. ” B ec ause he di d n otow n the subj ec tprop erty, T am ar i as se rt s the se ar ch w arra ntdi d n otautho ri ze the se ar ch of hi s vehi cl e. T am ar i concl ud es , there fore , the ve hi c l e s e a r c he s i n thi s c a s e w e r e unl a w f ul , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve su p p ressed th e ev i d en ce sei zed an d st at em en t s m ad e d u ri n g th o se search es. 2

A. Se ar c h W

ar r antTamari does not challeng e the validity of the sea

rch w arrant in this case. Thus, weneed 3 only addre ss whether

the sea rch w arrant authorized ag ents to search the Hummer . We answered this question in the affir mative in Un ited S

tates v. S e ar s , 1 3 9 F e d . Ap p x. 4 162, 166 (11th Cir. 2005). As an unpublished opinion, however, Sear slacks pre cedential authority and does not bind this Court. See11 th C ir . R. 36 -2 ; Summers v. Dillard’s, Inc. , 351 F.3d 1100, 1101 n. 1 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 8 T am ar i do es no tdi sput e thatthe H um m ercoul d h ave been se ar ched un der the t e rm s of

the s e a r c h w a rr a ntha d i tbe e n l oc a t e d on the s ubj e c tpr ope r ty a tthe tim e th e w a rr a n t w a s s e rv e d . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . C o le , 628 F . 2d 897, 899- 900 ( 5 th C i r . 1980) . R a the r , r e l y i ng pr i m a r i l y on U n i ted S ta tes v. G en try , 839 F . 2d 1 0 6 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) , T a m a r i a s s e r ts th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t d id n o t a u th o r iz e a g e n ts to s e a r c h ve hi c l e s a rr i vi ng on the s ubj e c tpr ope r ty l a t e r , a f t e rthe s e a r c h ha d a l r e a dy begu n. W e l ac k p ub l i shed autho ri ty i n thi s C i rc ui tas t o w hether aval i d sea rc h w a rr a nt a uthor i z i ng the s e a r c h of ve hi c l e s on the s ubj e c tpr ope r ty e nc om pa s s e s the 3 s e a r c h of ave hi c l e a rr i vi ng on tha tpr ope r ty dur i ng the c our s e of the s e a r c h. W e

4 a r e not , how e ve r , w i thoutgui da nc e on thi s i s s ue . I n U ni ted Stat es v. A lva , 885 F . 2d 25 0 (5th C i r. 19 89 ), the F i fth C i rc ui tpass ed on the preci se qu es t i on pres ent ed here . I n A lva , a search w arran tau th o ri zed o ffi cers t o search th e h o u se, stru ctu res, a n d “a n y a n d a ll m o to rv e h ic le s f o u n d p a rk e d ” o n th e s u b je c t p r o p e r ty . I

d. a t 2 5 1 . W hi l e the s e a r c h w a s be i ng c onduc t e d, A l vadr ove ont o the pr ope r ty i n api c kup tru c k . I d. O ff i ce rs se ar ched the vehi cl e, se i zi ng the se m i aut om at i c pi st ol that9

w ou l d eventual l y f

orm the basi s f

or A l va’ s f

el on -i n-po ss es si on conv i ct i on un der 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . I d. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d A l va ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the pi s t ol , f i ndi ng a s a“ m ot orve hi c l e [ ] f ound pa rke d” on the pr ope r ty , A l va ’ s pi c kup tru c k w a s s u b

je c t to s e a r c h u n d e rth e te rm s o f th e w a rr a n t. I

d. L i ke T am ar i , A l va ar gu ed on appeal thatthe se ar ch w arra ntdi d n otautho ri ze the se ar ch of hi s vehi cl e. H e r ea soned that“ the w arra ntl angu age r equi ri ng se ar ch o f ‘ an y an d al l v eh i cl es fo u n d o n th e p rem i ses . . . ’ d i d n o ten co m p ass v eh i cl es, such as hi s, thatarri ved atthe prem i se s a ft erthe po l i ce had b egun se ar chi ng . ” I d. B e c a us e “ the pol i c e ha d no pr obabl e c a us e t o s e a r c h hi s ve hi c l e i nde pe nde ntf r om the w arra nt , ” A l va as se rt ed “ the se ar ch w as i l l egal , ” a nd the re sul t i ng evi dence s h o u ld h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d . I d. a t 2 5 2 . T he F i fth C i rc ui tdi sa gree d. T he A lva courtem ph as i ze d thatthe “ approach of e xe r c i s i ng r e a s onabl e ne s s i n w a rr a ntc ons truc t i on [ appl i e s ] t o t i m i ng a s pe c t s of w arra ntexec ut i on . ” I

d. T h e c o u r t th e n h e ld , in r e le v a n t p a r t: T he s e a r c h of

A l va ’ s pi c kup truc k pur s ua ntt o w a rr a ntl a ngua ge a uthor i z i ng the s e a r c h of “ a ny a nd a l l m ot orve hi c l e s f ound pa rke d on the pr e m i s e s . . . ” w a s w i thi n the s c ope of the w a rr a nt . A l va ’ s r e a di ng of the l angu age, thati tproh i bi t s pol i ce fr om se ar chi ng vehi cl es ar riv in g af

ter th e s ea rc h b eg in s, u n n atu ra ll y c ra m p s th e w ar ra n t’ s t em po ra l autho ri ty. S ea rc hes do n ott ake pl ac e i n an i nst ant ; they occur over a per i od of t i m e, som et i m es m any hou rs . T hu s vehi cl es a rr i vi ng dur i ng the c our s e of as e a r c h a r e ve hi c l e s “ f ound pa rke d” on the prem i se s i f they r ea sonabl y c ou l d con t ai n the i t em s f or w hi ch l aw e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c i a l s a r e s e a r c hi ng. A l va ’ s pi c kup truc k w a s s uc h a v e h ic le .10

I d. W e a gr e e w i th the F i f th C i r c ui t . A va l i d s e a r c h w a rr a nta uthor i z i ng the s e a r c h of ve hi c l e s on the s ubj e c tpr ope r ty pe rm i t s the s e a r c h of ve hi c l e s a rr i vi ng on th a t p r o p e r ty d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e s e a r c h , s o lo n g a s th o s e v e h ic le s c o u ld re as on abl y c on t ai n i t em s the offi ce rs ar e s ea rc hi ng for. In thi s c as e, l i ke A lva , a va l i d s e a r c h w a rr a nta l l ow e d a ge nt s t o s e a r c h “ [ v] e hi c l e s . . . on the pr ope r ty on w h ic h th e p la c e to b e s e a r c h e d is s itu a te d .” A f te ra g e n ts s e rv e d a n d p r o c e e d e d to e x e c u te th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t, T a m a r i d r o v e aH u m m e ro n to th e s u b je c t p r o p e r ty . T h e H u m m e r , m o r e o v e r , r e a s o n ab ly c o u ld h a v e c o n ta in e d ite m s a g e n ts s o u g h t in th e search w arran t , i n cl u d i n g d o cu m en t s, acco u n tb o o k s, cu rren cy, j ew el ry, fi re arm s, and d rug p ar aphernal i a. A s are sul t , the vehi cl e s ea rc hes i n thi s c as e, c onduc t e d pur s ua ntt o w a rr a ntl a ngua ge a uthor i z i ng the s e a r c h of ve hi c l e s “ on the pr ope r ty on w hi c h the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d i s s i tua t e d, ” w e r e w i thi n the s c ope of th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t. T o s u p p o r t h is a r g u m e n t to th e c o n tr a ry , T a m a r i r e lie s p r im a r ily o n th e F if th C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n U

n i ted S ta tes v. G en try , 8 3 9 F .2 d 1 0 6 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . H is re l i ance i s m i spl ac ed, ho w ever , because G en try ’s h o ld in g is irr e le v a n t to th is c a s e . I n G en try , the c our tl i m i t e d i t s a na l y s i s t o de f i ni ng the phy s i c a l bounda r i e s of the s e a r c h w a rr a n t in q u e s tio n . Se e i d. a t1068- 69. T he phy s i c a l s c ope of the w a rr a nt ’ s a uthor i ty i s nota ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e , how e ve r , be c a us e i ti s be y ondBe causethe vehiclesearches w erelawful, weneed not address Tamari’s a rgument that 5 statements he madeduringthose searches should havebeen suppressed a s fruit of the poisonous treeunder W

ong Sun v. United States . 11 d isp u te th at th e H u m m erw as o n th e s u b ject p ro p er ty, an d th u s w ith in th e w ar ra n t’ s phy s i c a l bounda r i e s , a tthe t i m e of the s e a r c he s . T he que s t i on pr e s e nt e d he r e i s the w arra nt ’ s t em po ra l autho ri ty a nd , m ore s peci fi ca l l y, w hether a gent s m ayse ar ch vehi cl es arri vi ng on the subj ec tprop erty duri ng the course of a s ea rc h con du ct ed p u r s u a n t to av a lid s e a r c h w a rr a n t. T he G en try c our te xpr e s s l y w i thhe l d j udgm e nt o n th a t is s u e . S e e i d. a t 1 0 6 9 . I n d e e d , th e F if th C ir c u it a n s w e r e d th e q u e s tio n in the a f f i rm a t i ve the ne xty e a ri n A lva , w h ic h w e f o llo w h e r e . W e hol d, there fore , thatthe S ept em ber 1, 20 04 , vehi cl e s ea rc hes w er e autho ri ze d b y the t erm s of the se ar ch w arra nt . C on se qu ent l y, the se ar ches w er e l a w f ul unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e nt , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng T am ari ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress th e resu l t i n g ev i d en ce an d st at em en t s. 5 B. A utom obi l e E

x c e pt i on T am ar i nextar gu es the vehi cl e s ea rc hes w er e uncon st i tut i on al un der Y b a rra v . I llin o is , 44 4 U . S . 85 , 10 0 S . C t . 33 8 (19 79 ), because the H um m er ’ s m er e p r e s e n c e o n th e s u b

je c t p r o p e r ty d id n o t g iv e a g e n ts s u f f ic ie n t p r o b ab le c a u s e to s e a r c h th e v e h ic le w ith o u t aw a rr a n t. W e d is a g r e e a n d h o ld th a t e v e n if th e v e h ic le search es d i d n o tfal l w i th i n th e sco p e o f th e search w arran t , th e w arran t l ess12

s e a r c he s of

the H um m e rw e r e none the l e s s l a w f ul unde rthe a ut om obi l e e xc e pt i on to th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t’s w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t. A ga i n, the a ut om obi l e e xc e pt i on pe rm i t s w a rr a nt l e s s ve hi c l e s e a r c he s i f the v e h ic le is o p e r a tio n a l a n d a g e n ts h a v e p r o b ab le c a u s e to b e lie v e th e v e h ic le c o n ta in s e v id e n c e o f

ac r im e . Se e D

ys on , 527 U . S . a t466- 67, 119 S . C t . a t2014; U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a g lu ta , 41 8 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 82 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). P robabl e c ause , in tu rn , e x is ts w h e n u n d e rth e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , “th e r e is af a ir prob abi l i ty thatcontraband or evi dence of a c ri m e w i l l be foun d” i n the vehi cl e. G o dda rd , 31 2 F . 3d at13 63 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). B ec ause there i s no d i sput e that the H um m erw as op er at i on al , ou r i nq ui ryi s l i m i t ed t o d et erm i ni ng w hether s u f f ic ie n t p r o b ab le c a u s e e x is te d to a llo w w a rr a n tle s s s e a r c h e s o f th e v e h ic le . F i rs t , w e hol d A gentC ra ne had p robabl e c ause t o con du ctthe i ni t i al se ar ch of the H um m er . A gent s w er e s ea rc hi ng a par ce l of rura l , i sol at ed prop erty they had p robabl e c ause t o b el i eve w as partof a l ar ge-s ca l e drug con spi ra cy . A ft erthey s e iz e d c o c a in e , c a s h , a n d f ir e a rm s o n th e p r e m is e s , ay e llo w H u m m e rd r o v e o n to th e p r o p e r ty , th e s a m e ty p e o f v e h ic le a g e n ts s u s p e c te d w a s d r iv e n b y H u m b e r to F ebl es , the head of the drug conspi ra cy . In fa ct , w hen T am ar i changed h i s s t ory r e ga r di ng the ve hi c l e ’ s ow ne r , he c l a i m e d am a n na m e d H um be r t o l oa ne d hi m the H um m e r . U pon r e que s t , T a m a r i w a s unabl e t o pr oduc e a ny i de nt i f i c a t i on or v eh i cl e reg i strat i o n . F u rth er, w h en ask ed ab o u th i s p u rp o se o n th e p ro p erty,We need not address whether ag ents had c ause to walk Ho J o around theperimeter of 6 the vehiclebeca

use a dr ugsniff performed during a lawful tra ffic stop is not a sea rch implicating Four th Amendment conc erns. See I llinois v. Caballes , 543 U.S. 405, 410, 125 S. C t. 834, 838 (2005). 13 T a m a r i pr of

f e r e d the unt e nabl e e xpl a na t i on tha the w a s the r e t o s e e am a n about s o m e a n im a ls . G iv e n th e to ta lity o f th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , ar e a s o n ab le a g e n t c o u ld de duc e w i th f

a i rpr obabi l i ty tha tthe H um m e rc ont a i ne d c ontr aba nd ore vi de nc e of ac r im e . Se e , e . g. , Cha m bers v. M aron ey , 399 U . S . 42, 47- 48, 52, 90 S . C t . 1975, 19 79 , 19 81 (197 0) (not i ng “ ob vi ou sl y [ there w as ] prob abl e c ause t o sea rc h the ca r” w he n of f i c e r s ha d ade s c r i pt i on of the s us pe c t s a nd the ve hi c l e the y dr ove ) . A ge nt C r a n e , th e r e f

o r e , h a d s u f

f ic ie n t p r o b ab le c a u s e to s e a r c h th e H u m m e r . S ec on d, agent s had prob abl e c ause t o sea rc h the H um m eron ce m ore a ft er H o J o , th e n a r c o tic s d e te c tio n d o g , c ir c le d th e v e h ic le . A lo n g w ith th e f a c ts e s t abl i s hi ng pr obabl e c a us e f orA ge ntC r a ne ’ s i ni t i a l s e a r c h, H o J o s ni f f e d the H um m erand al ert ed agent s t o the pres ence of narc ot i cs i n the re arof the vehi cl e. 6 W e ha ve l ong r e c ogni z e d tha t“ pr obabl e c a us e a r i s e s w he n adrug- tr a i ne d c a ni ne al ert s t o d rugs. ” U

ni ted Stat es v. B an ks , 3 F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; see a l so U ni ted Stat es v. D un kley , 9 1 1 F .2 d 5 2 2 , 5 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. P u g l isi , 723 F . 2d 779, 783 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . N otw i ths t a ndi ng the f a c t s va l i da t i ng th e in itia l s e a r c h , H o J o ’s p o s itiv e a le r t w a s its e lf s u f f ic ie n t to g iv e a g e n ts p r o b ab le c a u s e to s e a r c h th e H u m m e ras e c o n d tim e .Se esu pra note 5. 7 14 T h u s , e v e n if

th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t h a d n o t ju s tif ie d th e v e h ic le s e a r c h e s in th is c a s e , w e f

in d th e a g e n ts w e r e e n title d to s e a r c h th e H u m m e ru n d e rth e a u to m o b ile e x c e p tio n to th e w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e r e f o r e , d id n o t e rrin d en yi n g T am ari ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress th e resu l t i n g ev i d en ce an d st at em en t s. 7 I V. C ON C L US I ON I n s um , w e hol d the H um m e rw a s s ubj e c tt o s e a r c h unde rthe t e rm s of the se ar ch w arra nt . In the al t ernat i ve, agent s w er e e nt i t l ed t o sea rc h the H um m er w i thoutaw a rr a ntunde rthe a ut om obi l e e xc e pt i on t o the w a rr a ntr e qui r e m e nt . T he di stri ctcourt , there fore , di d n oterr i n adm i tt i ng evi dence and st at em ent s obt ai ned d u rin g th e S ep tem b er1 , 2 0 0 4 , v eh icle se ar ch es . W e a cc o rd in g ly af firm T am ar i’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I R ME D.